My feedback

1. Show resource Id in the azure portal too

   36 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Sign in

   prestine

   Your name

   Your email address

   (thinking…)

   

   Password

   Sign in with: Microsoft

   Forgot password?

   Create a password

   I agree to the terms of service

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   10 comments  ·  Azure portal » Resource management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  May 28, 2020

2. Rename a column name in SQLDW

   143 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Sign in

   prestine

   Your name

   Your email address

   (thinking…)

   

   Password

   Sign in with: Microsoft

   Forgot password?

   Create a password

   I agree to the terms of service

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   started  ·  6 comments  ·  Azure Synapse Analytics » SQL/T-SQL  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  May 25, 2020

3. Allow Resource Governor to control the CAP of the TOTAL IO in MB/s

   14 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Sign in

   prestine

   Your name

   Your email address

   (thinking…)

   

   Password

   Sign in with: Microsoft

   Forgot password?

   Create a password

   I agree to the terms of service

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   Niko Neugebauer shared this idea  ·  May 25, 2020

4. Create a new DMV that Exposes CPU Utilization Information

   • 

   47 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Sign in

   prestine

   Your name

   Your email address

   (thinking…)

   

   Password

   Sign in with: Microsoft

   Forgot password?

   Create a password

   I agree to the terms of service

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  March 13, 2020

5. Add built-in support for regular expressions in T-SQL

   67 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Sign in

   prestine

   Your name

   Your email address

   (thinking…)

   

   Password

   Sign in with: Microsoft

   Forgot password?

   Create a password

   I agree to the terms of service

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   unplanned  ·  AdminMicrosoft SQL Server (Product Manager, Microsoft Azure) responded

   Upvotes: 54

   <=-=Sep 4 2007 12:29PM=-=>

   If this is considered for a future version of SQL Server, please implement it according to the ISO SQL standard. In other words, implement the SQL Standard , which provides regular expression support through the operator [NOT] SIMILAR TO, which in the standard remains separate from LIKE.

   <=-=Sep 5 2007 7:05AM=-=>

   Like Steve, I would also like to stress that any implementation should be as per ANSI (SIMILAR predicate). The CLR functionality is not a relevant design consideration.

   <=-=Oct 15 2007 8:43AM=-=>

   This is a request we’ve heard a lot, and it’s of obvious value. I can’t promise when we’ll get to it—-it’s doubtful for this release—-but this is certainly on our radar.

   Cheers,
   -Isaac

   <=-=Mar 24 2010 2:54PM=-=>

   Hi,
   I have resolved this request as duplicate of feedback item below:

   https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/261342/regex-functionality-in-pattern-matching?wa=wsignin1.0

   —
   Umachandar, SQL Programmability Team

   <=-=Mar 24 2010 3:59PM=-=>

   Resolved as duplicate.

   —
   Umachandar

   <=-=Mar 25 2010 11:10AM=-=>

   Resolved as duplicate.

   —
   Umachandar

   Upvotes: 54

   <=-=Sep 4 2007 12:29PM=-=>

   If this is considered for a future version of SQL Server, please implement it according to the ISO SQL standard. In other words, implement the SQL Standard , which provides regular expression support through the operator [NOT] SIMILAR TO, which in the standard remains separate from LIKE.

   <=-=Sep 5 2007 7:05AM=-=>

   Like Steve, I would also like to stress that any implementation should be as per ANSI (SIMILAR predicate). The CLR functionality is not a relevant design consideration.

   <=-=Oct 15 2007 8:43AM=-=>

   This is a request we’ve heard a lot, and it’s of obvious value. I can’t promise when we’ll get to it—-it’s doubtful for this release—-but this is certainly on our radar.

   Cheers,
   -Isaac

   <=-=Mar 24 2010 2:54PM=-=>

   Hi,
   I have resolved this request as duplicate of feedback item below:

   https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/261342/regex-functionality-in-pattern-matching?wa=wsignin1.0

   —
   Umachandar, SQL Programmability Team

   <=-=Mar 24 2010… more
   Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  February 25, 2020

6. SSMS:Add a Keyboard Shortcut that Executes the Statement where the Cursor is placed

   471 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Sign in

   prestine

   Your name

   Your email address

   (thinking…)

   

   Password

   Sign in with: Microsoft

   Forgot password?

   Create a password

   I agree to the terms of service

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   18 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   planned  ·  AdminMicrosoft SQL Server (Product Manager, Microsoft Azure) responded

   We’ll look at this for future release.

   Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

7. Multi-threaded rebuilds of Clustered Columnstore Indexes break the sequence of pre-sorted segment ordering (Order Clustering)

   28 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Sign in

   prestine

   Your name

   Your email address

   (thinking…)

   

   Password

   Sign in with: Microsoft

   Forgot password?

   Create a password

   I agree to the terms of service

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   4 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   under review  ·  AdminMicrosoft SQL Server (Product Manager, Microsoft Azure) responded

   Upvotes: 47

   <=-=Jul 3 2014 10:03AM=-=>

   This would definitely be a good build. I walked through an initial investigation of clustered columnstore on one of our data sets, and the number of reads was reduced by about 80% for some queries in the workload once I started paying careful attention to segments and loading data in a single-threaded manner to optimize segment elimination. However, this results in slower loading of data, and it would be great to be able to create columnstore indexes in order for segment elimination.

   Having an optional ORDER BY clause for the columnstore initial creation, removing the need to first create a clustered index in order to control order and allowing parallelism without breaking order, would be particularly powerful.

   <=-=Jul 3 2014 10:30AM=-=>

   Neugebauer: thanks. you identified the issue correctly. This is something we are actively looking. One question
   (1) once the index is build, the subsequent inserts may not be ordered, Is this a big issue?

   thanks
   Sunil

   <=-=Jul 4 2014 8:40AM=-=>

   Thank you for the commentary, Sunil.

   In my personal opinion, the subsequent inserts can be unordered, since we can easily rebuild index/partition to get them back in order.
   Clustered Columnstore Index is not a truly ordered index and hence there is no need to upheld the order.

   It would be awesome to have it ordered one day, but I am not holding my breath:),
   especially since one can get items order by Rebuilding CCI.

   I like the suggestion by Geoff of eliminating by rowstore index creation before CCI build,
   but given it’s impact (~0.7 times slower)
   and syntax implications (column order specification) – I see this feature coming into a potential ordered version of the Columnstore.

   <=-=Aug 6 2014 1:54PM=-=>

   Sunil,

   I also agree that the subsequent inserts can be unordered. Neugebauer’s logic makes sense to me. This is really about optimizing the initial creation of large columnstore tables. We would typically be loading new data only by building / rebuilding an entire new partition at a time, and it seems like that must be a common use case for many of the large data sets towards which columnstore is geared.

   <=-=Nov 11 2014 3:31PM=-=>

   Niko/Geoff:

   Thanks for your suggestions. We are considering this for the next release

   thanks
   Sunil

   <=-=Dec 8 2014 5:40PM=-=>

   Niko: I am closign this as this is in the plans for next release. If this gets pushed out unepectedly, please feel free to re-activate

   thanks
   Sunil

   <=-=Apr 5 2016 10:13AM=-=>

   In SQL Server 2016, parallel index (re)builds of Column Store Indexes will not preserve ordering.
   As noted, the workaround is to do the build with MAXDOP = 1, so it becomes a tradeoff between index build performance and query performance.
   We clearly understand the problem space, and why this would be beneficial. Unfortunately, we haven’t solved some of the technical issues involved.
   We will continue to look into this area.

   Kevin

   <=-=Jun 29 2016 9:59AM=-=>

   Thanks for the update, Kevin.

   I’d still love to see a version in the future where the Columnstore index build runs in parallel, builds segments in the desired order, and does not require creating an intermediate b-tree index first. But definitely understand there may be tough technical challenges involved.

   <=-=May 16 2017 6:42AM=-=>

   For pretty much every client that we work with, this keeps coming up as a pain point. We’re essentially telling clients to choose between much slower ETL processes or reduced DW query performance for certain query patterns that would benefit hugely from segment elimination, including many of the most common reporting and analytic queries they are performing. This feature would be hugely valuable in order to unlock both good ETL performance and good DW query performance, which are currently at odds with each other.

   Our request would be two features:
   (1) Allow optional control of the order in which new rows are packing into segments when using INSERT INTO … WITH TABLOCK to insert data into a clustered columnstore index in parallel
   (2) Add optional control of the row order to the REBUILD command for columnstore indexes

   The first of these two features is the critical one, as it unlocks the parallel load capability into a single columnstore table (which we would use as a staging table to swap into a partition of a much larger fact table). Even if explicit rebuild support is not present, a rebuild could still be performed by re-inserting all of the data using feature (1). Feature (2) is a nice to have that would be convenient, but we’d be satisfied with (1) even if (2) is not implemented or not implemented in the same release.

   Controlling the order in which rows are distributed into row groups will yield huge DW query performance benefits for queries that can benefit from segment elimination by providing the ideal scenario: each segment has a disjoint range (almost, ignoring some possible ties) on the leading column of our ordering. However, it is understood that neither of these features would guarantee the order of future inserts, and neither would impact the delta store in cases where the number of rows inserted is small enough that a new segment is not created. Therefore, the query optimizer would continue to avoid making any assumptions about the order of data for a clustered columnstore index loaded using this feature.

   Upvotes: 47

   <=-=Jul 3 2014 10:03AM=-=>

   This would definitely be a good build. I walked through an initial investigation of clustered columnstore on one of our data sets, and the number of reads was reduced by about 80% for some queries in the workload once I started paying careful attention to segments and loading data in a single-threaded manner to optimize segment elimination. However, this results in slower loading of data, and it would be great to be able to create columnstore indexes in order for segment elimination.

   Having an optional ORDER BY clause for the columnstore initial creation, removing the need to first create a clustered index in order to control order and allowing parallelism without breaking order, would be particularly powerful.

   <=-=Jul 3 2014 10:30AM=-=>

   Neugebauer: thanks. you identified the issue correctly. This is something we are actively looking. One question
   (1) once the index is build, the… more

   An error occurred while saving the comment
   Niko Neugebauer commented  ·  January 16, 2020  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…

   Given that this feature is already available in Azure SQL DW (Synapse Analytics), it must be not too hard to make it work on Azure SQL DB and SQL Server:
   http://www.nikoport.com/2019/10/04/columnstore-indexes-part-128-ordering-columnstore-in-azure-sqldw/

   Save Submitting...
   Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

8. OVER clause enhancement request - DISTINCT clause for aggregate functions

   47 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Sign in

   prestine

   Your name

   Your email address

   (thinking…)

   

   Password

   Sign in with: Microsoft

   Forgot password?

   Create a password

   I agree to the terms of service

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   unplanned  ·  AdminMicrosoft SQL Server (Product Manager, Microsoft Azure) responded

   Upvotes: 577

   <=-=Dec 13 2007 3:33PM=-=>

   Dear Itzik.

   Thanks a lot for your feedback… and the strong voting support for this feature. Indeed, as you know, I am very much in favor of extending our functionality in this area. For a variety of reasons we did not get this into SQL Server 2008, but we are certainly looking into it for a future release.

   Keep the votes and comments coming…
   Michael

   PS: My apologies for the late official reply…

   <=-=Mar 10 2009 4:37PM=-=>

   I am a big fan of the ranking functions and partition by clause. I used them extensively. It was a fantastic inclusion in 2005. However, I can’t tell the number of times I wished DISTINCT worked with the count function. I can’t believe it wasn’t included in 2008!! So I’ve added my vote to get this in ASAP.

   <=-=Sep 15 2009 7:08AM=-=>

   yes this would be very helpful. I’m sitting here frustrated over my inability to do this.

   <=-=Dec 14 2009 5:53PM=-=>

   Count(DISTINCT Col1) OVER (PARTITION BY Col2) would solve my problem perfectly! I need to know if the number of items is different than the number of distinct items. Solving this another way will be tricky.

   <=-=Dec 14 2009 6:05PM=-=>

   If we could nest ranking functions this would do the same thing (of course, we can’t so this code doesn’t work):

   SELECT
   X,
   Y,
   Rnk = Max(Dense_Rank() OVER (PARTITION BY X ORDER BY Y)) OVER (PARTITION BY X)
   FROM (
   SELECT ‘a’ x, 1 y
   UNION ALL SELECT ‘a’, 1
   UNION ALL SELECT ‘a’, 2
   UNION ALL SELECT ‘b’, 1
   UNION ALL SELECT ‘b’, 1
   ) Z

   <=-=May 6 2011 8:21AM=-=>

   I use the over() clause quite a bit and it’s been very useful, however only now am I really wanting more functionality from it, so figured I’d bump this thread. I’m good with workarounds, and not entirely sure I, “need” additional functionality, however it would surely lend itself to more elegant solutions.

   - sql 2008 r2, mainly using over() for data warehousing, or tweaky ad hoc reports,
   - DBA, New Belgium Brewery

   <=-=Nov 3 2011 12:38PM=-=>

   It would be nice to be able to use the result of an OVER clause in a where clause too. I’m always having to make wrappers just to filter the result of an OVER clause.

   <=-=Oct 31 2012 10:23AM=-=>

   Say you are reporting on a price comparison engine.

   In a given time period, you want a count of how many users clicked through to each website whose prices you compare.

   On the assumption that users make at most one purchase per website per day, you want to dedupe the cases where users click through many times.

   The Referrals table contains one row per click-through.

   To get this deduped count for yesterday, you should be able to write

   SELECT
   COUNT OVER (PARTITION BY Website) AS DedupedUserCount
   FROM Referrals
   WHERE
   ReferralTime >= ‘2012-10-30’ AND
   ReferralTime < ‘2012-10-31’

   This fails with the disappointing message

   Msg 10759, Level 15, State 1, Line 11 Use of DISTINCT is not allowed with the OVER clause.

   Plamen Ratchev provides a workaround (see Workarounds) using the DENSE_RANK function in a subquery and the MAX function.

   But we should be able to do it as declaratively as the SQL grammar allows!

   <=-=Jan 10 2013 12:47PM=-=>

   I really hope this feature is a part of SQL Server 2012 because I just tried to use it in 2008 and came here to find it’s not supported. I’m using something like the code below to get the result.

   SELECT COUNT AS DedupedUserCount
   FROM Referrals AS R
   GROUP BY R.Website
   HAVING ReferralTime >= ‘2012-10-30’ AND ReferralTime < ‘2012-10-31’;

   <=-=Mar 5 2013 7:04AM=-=>

   It’s really frustrating that this feature is not included in SQL Server 2012 also !

   <=-=Aug 14 2015 1:40PM=-=>

   I know this is a much newer comment on this but we are currently on 2008 R2 for SQL Server due to business constraints and having this functionality would make solving my current problem so incredibly easy.

   <=-=Nov 30 2015 2:39AM=-=>

   You should fix this. It is not working in SQL Server 2014 also. This limitation was reported almost 9 years ago.

   <=-=Jun 29 2016 5:51AM=-=>

   This is many useful place being able to do a Select count distinct x Over… would make things so easy. Typical workarounds for this lack of functionality are counter intuitive.

   Upvotes: 577

   <=-=Dec 13 2007 3:33PM=-=>

   Dear Itzik.

   Thanks a lot for your feedback… and the strong voting support for this feature. Indeed, as you know, I am very much in favor of extending our functionality in this area. For a variety of reasons we did not get this into SQL Server 2008, but we are certainly looking into it for a future release.

   Keep the votes and comments coming…
   Michael

   PS: My apologies for the late official reply…

   <=-=Mar 10 2009 4:37PM=-=>

   I am a big fan of the ranking functions and partition by clause. I used them extensively. It was a fantastic inclusion in 2005. However, I can’t tell the number of times I wished DISTINCT worked with the count function. I can’t believe it wasn’t included in 2008!! So I’ve added my vote to get this in ASAP.

   <=-=Sep 15 2009 7:08AM=-=>

   yes this would be… more

   Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

9. Expose Resource Governor for SQL Azure

   66 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   Sign in

   prestine

   Your name

   Your email address

   (thinking…)

   

   Password

   Sign in with: Microsoft

   Forgot password?

   Create a password

   I agree to the terms of service

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

10. [Graph Database] Implementation of Transitive Closure and Transitive Reduction

    31 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

11. Add RESTORE with NORECOVERY Back to Managed Instance

    40 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

12. Column Store Deadlock XML Is Missing Information

    •  

    •  

    58 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

13. In-Memory OLTP - allow removal of Filegroup for memory_optimized_data

    147 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    21 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    under review  ·  AdminMicrosoft SQL Server (Product Manager, Microsoft Azure) responded

    Upvotes: 3

    <=-=Jan 8 2018 12:16PM=-=>

    Thanks for the suggestion.
    We’ll consider it for a future release.

    Are there specific limitations imposed when you have the filegroup, e.g., no database snapshot, that hold you back from creating the filegroup?
    Or is it only the feeling of not being able to turn back?

    —
    Jos de Bruijn – Database Systems PM

    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

14. Restore a table from a backup

    1,023 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    100 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    under review  ·  AdminMicrosoft SQL Server (Product Manager, Microsoft Azure) responded

    This is something that we’ve had on our radar for some time, but haven’t been able to get it prioritized. Will definitely consider for future releases.

    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

15. Allow Recovery Model to be changed to SIMPLE in Azure SQL Database

    •  

    288 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  10 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

16. Monitor queries on secondary database when read scale out is enabled in Premium tier

    273 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    6 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  January 16, 2020

17. Allow Updating Statistics on the Secondary Replicas of the Availability Groups

    64 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  4 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Niko Neugebauer commented  ·  July 11, 2019  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…

    Hi Matteo,

    the point in this request is ALLOW updating the statistics on the secondary in the future.
    My blog post was exactly on how to do this now (but rather on smaller tables).

    I have previously spoken with the PMs responsible for the respective features (Sourab, Joe) and even Engineering Manager (Gjorgji) and all of them thought that it would be an interesting feature to consider.

    Best regards,
    Niko

    Save Submitting...
    Niko Neugebauer shared this idea  ·  June 20, 2019

18. Add Master Data Services (MDS) to Azure hosted MS SQL.

    1,136 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    55 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    unplanned  ·  AdminSQL Database feature voting forum admins (Product Owner, Microsoft Azure) responded

    This is not currently planned at this time. Will keep this item open for voting and comments.

    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  March 20, 2019

19. PolyBase: Support for Azure SQL Database

    1,297 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    48 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    unplanned  ·  AdminSQL Database feature voting forum admins (Product Owner, Microsoft Azure) responded

    Not planned at this time. Will keep this item open for future review.

    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  ·  March 20, 2019

20. Enhance Managed Service running the Restore process

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Sign in

    prestine

    Your name

    Your email address

    (thinking…)

    

    Password

    Sign in with: Microsoft

    Forgot password?

    Create a password

    I agree to the terms of service

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer shared this idea  ·  March 20, 2019