Update: Microsoft will be moving away from UserVoice sites on a product-by-product basis throughout the 2021 calendar year. We will leverage 1st party solutions for customer feedback. Learn more here.

Gottfried Lesigang

My feedback

  1. 11 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 178

    <=-=Apr 13 2007 1:31PM=-=>

    Dear Michael

    Thanks for the feedback. We will be looking into your suggestion for a future release of SQL Server.

    Best regards
    Michael

    <=-=Jun 4 2007 1:43PM=-=>

    This would be very useful for our products as well.

    <=-=Aug 26 2008 8:55AM=-=>

    I just encountered this weird behavior. Although it is valid XML, it makes the resulting document extremely large as well as inconsistent. E.g., the intermediate elements created by the “AS” clause of the subquery don’t have the namespace declaration. I vote for a fix.

    <=-=Sep 17 2008 8:20AM=-=>

    I also think this should be changed. It makes the XML very difficult to read!

    <=-=Jan 29 2009 12:09AM=-=>

    The current function realy bloats the returned XML, we’ve used the “old-school” for xml expicit but the sql to construct that is realy messy.
    We’ve used the xml functionality in SQL server for a…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Gottfried Lesigang commented  · 

    In a few weeks we will celebrate the 14th (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) birthday of this topic... What is the sense of former Connect and now this Azure platform, if there is no response and no development in any direction? This issue is really annoying (albeit not really hard to solve).

    Gottfried Lesigang supported this idea  · 
  2. 570 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    97 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Gottfried Lesigang commented  · 

    Thank you Yitzhak for this very important push!

    Very often we have to mix classical relational approaches with rather generic data. XML and JSON support is absolutely crucial for this.

    Supporting current standards of XQuery, XPath and XSLT was really important.

    The developer team did some great work with the blazingly fast JSON parser. Regrettfully, the parsing has to be done over and over due to the missing native JSON type... And we are mssing JSON path and query functionality like we have it with XML (although this is rather out-dated).

    So I fully support this issue hoping for a modern XML and JSON engine in a future version of SQL-Server.

    Gottfried Lesigang supported this idea  · 
  3. 20 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 8

    <=-=Mar 4 2017 9:33AM=-=>

    We understand the problem. XML is designed differently and the goal was to provide rich query language with XPath support, which might require a lot of memory and processing logic. OPENJSON is designed to be more lightweight and just scan JSON text and return values where it finds them. There are pros and cons for both approaches (similar to pros and cons for DOM and SAX parsers).

    The key differentiators between JSON and XML is the fact that JSON is better for scan based processing of JSON columns where you just pick few values from JSON text, and XML is better for rich querying and indexing.

    I will keep this item open and let people vote for this; however, we cannot guarantee that this kind of re-design of XML will be done in near future.

    If you need to use shredded nodes in some…

    Gottfried Lesigang supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base