Wim Buyens

My feedback

  1. 18 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 →
    Wim Buyens supported this idea  · 
  2. 18 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Wim Buyens supported this idea  · 
  3. 19 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Wim Buyens supported 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 →

    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…

    Wim Buyens 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…
    Wim Buyens supported this idea  · 
  6. 72 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 →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Wim Buyens commented  · 

    I also use a CLR function for this. With CLR u can everything u want.. indeed would be helpfull if some commonly used .net features would already available inside SQL server itself.

  7. 442 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    14 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Wim Buyens supported this idea  · 
  8. 437 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 8

    <=-=Mar 5 2017 2:42PM=-=>

    Thanks for this idea. This is a valid requirement and I hope that it will get more votes. Currently we cannot confirm when it will be added, but it is in our backlog.

    <=-=May 22 2017 5:03AM=-=>

    would like it very much, particularly since you already have the CONCAT / GREATEST() a variable number of paramenters and does something with it…

    <=-=Jun 5 2017 12:31PM=-=>

    GREATEST / LEAST functions would be fantastic addition.

    <=-=Nov 14 2017 3:42PM=-=>

    The workarounds using CROSS APPLY or CASE expressions are difficult to manage and read. I’d love to see these implemented.

    Wim Buyens supported this idea  · 
  9. 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 →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Wim Buyens commented  · 

    I think with the Redgate Toolbelt u can do this. Because u can also compare from a database with a backup. Redgate has really great tools.. I would look there https://www.red-gate.com/products/

  10. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Wim Buyens commented  · 

    Same happens in the Select destination when u dont select a database and press next..

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Wim Buyens commented  · 

    So everytime u need to expand the the form before the databasename is visible but this is not what u expect from SSMS.

    Wim Buyens shared this idea  · 
  11. 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 Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Wim Buyens shared this idea  · 
  12. 25 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 →

    Upvotes: 158

    <=-=Dec 4 2009 10:01PM=-=>

    I think this goes further than computed columns, as a filtered index can’t be used for something as simple as WHERE num % 2 = 0 (with no computed columns in sight). I really want to see filtered indexes become more useful.

    <=-=Dec 7 2009 10:29AM=-=>

    Greg,

    Thanks for your feedback. I agree we should allow filtered indexes on persisted computed columns, and should support more complex filter expressions, at some point in the future. We restricted the functionality for the first version but we’ll consider this for a future release. The documentation should be more precise about the restrictions on predicate expressions. I’ll follow up on that.

    Best regards,
    Eric

    <=-=Dec 8 2009 8:56PM=-=>

    I was AMAZED when I could not create a filtered index on computed column.

    But I as APPALLED and DUMBFOUNDED when I could not create a filtered indexes on…

    Wim Buyens supported this idea  · 
  13. 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 Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Wim Buyens shared this idea  · 
  14. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Wim Buyens commented  · 

    SQl Server 10.50.6000

    Wim Buyens shared this idea  · 
  15. 303 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: 127

    <=-=Jun 23 2015 8:37AM=-=>

    I’m the first to post a useful comment. This must make me special.

    Seriously though, this would be an excellent solution to having to create a new “scratchdb” to hold my interim ETL data. This would be a major plus in simplifying design of a high performance app.

    <=-=Jul 3 2015 5:04AM=-=>

    In 2014, memory optimized tables, and delayed durability can be used help mitigate these Issues. However neither of this are always completely viable solutions. Brent’s proposed solution is likely the simplest way to achieve this with the least amount of unwanted impact. It is important to note that other platforms implement similar functionality as well. Notably Oracle.

    <=-=Nov 29 2016 3:58PM=-=>

    There are so many good things about this suggestion. I am amazed that SQL does not have the capability to turn off logging for certain tables that you define as no…

    Wim Buyens supported this idea  · 
  16. 1 vote
    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 →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Wim Buyens commented  · 

    Would be nice if this function is provided by SQL out of the box:

    create function dbo.Point_degrees ( @lat nvarchar(12),@long nvarchar(13),@srid int)
    RETURNS Geography
    with SCHEMABINDING
    as
    begin
    return geography::STGeomFromText('POINT('+
    convert(sysname,(convert(float,substring(@long,1,3))+ convert(float,substring(@long,5,7))/60) *case when @long like '%E' then 1 else -1 end )
    +' '+
    convert(sysname,(convert(float,substring(@lat,1,2))+ convert(float,substring(@lat,4,7))/60) * case when @lat like '%N' then 1 else -1 end)
    +')',@srid)
    end
    GO

    Wim Buyens shared this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Wim Buyens commented  · 

    Only float are allowed now.
    select geography::Point(51.01388876 ,3.720430603, 4326) --lat,long,srid
    Allow similar for :
    select geography:Point_degrees('51 03.9611 N','004 21.8795 E',4326)

  17. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Wim Buyens shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base