Niko Neugebauer

My feedback

  1. 36 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    10 comments  ·  Azure portal » Resource management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  2. 143 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    started  ·  6 comments  ·  Azure Synapse Analytics » SQL/T-SQL  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  3. 14 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer shared this idea  · 
  4. 47 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  5. 67 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    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…
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  6. 471 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    18 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  7. 28 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    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…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Niko Neugebauer commented  · 

    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/

    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  8. 47 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    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…

    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  9. 66 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  10. 31 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  11. 40 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  12. 58 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  13. 147 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    21 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    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  · 
  14. 1,023 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    100 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  15. 288 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  10 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  16. 273 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    6 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  17. 64 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    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

    Niko Neugebauer shared this idea  · 
  18. 1,136 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    55 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  19. 1,297 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    48 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer supported this idea  · 
  20. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Niko Neugebauer shared this idea  · 
← Previous 1 3

Feedback and Knowledge Base