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.

Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 63 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: 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…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  2. 4 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

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  3. 152 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

    8 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  4. 195 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

    under review  ·  20 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  5. 229 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

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

    Upvotes: 278

    <=-=Feb 1 2008 7:18PM=-=>

    Thanks for the valuable suggestion.

    This seems more like adding the sequence support which we’re seriously considering for the next major release.

    Meanwhile, would using identity column help?

    <=-=Feb 2 2008 2:11AM=-=>

    It does not seem that you understood the request. This definitely has nothing to do with
    IDENTITY. I am less versed about sequences, but I don’t think they will cut it either. If you think
    it does, maybe you could provide an example? Take this problem: For the Orders table in
    Northwind, write a query that lists the number of orders for all days in 1997. The result set should
    include all 365 days, and list zero for days without a number.

    This is a typical problem where you need a table of of numbers (or dates). While it’s easy to
    create such a table, I argue in this request that…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  6. 399 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

    under review  ·  10 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  7. 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

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  8. 51 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

    under review  ·  9 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  9. 121 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

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

    Upvotes: 289

    <=-=Aug 9 2007 9:12AM=-=>

    Benefits:
    Improved Readability, therefore Maintainablity, therefore reduced manpower $ and time expenditure.

    <=-=Aug 27 2007 6:13PM=-=>

    I definitely see the value of this. Thanks for proposing it. We’ll try to squeeze it in to SQL Server 2008 but things are really tight in terms of room for changes like this. It has to compete with many other things, including a bunch that have a larger impact on query performance, or that don’t have an easy workaround. This issue has a workaround, though it is not pretty and programmability would be enhanced a lot with the proposed enhancement. I’ll see what I can do.

    Best regards,
    Eric

    <=-=Oct 17 2007 2:06PM=-=>

    Things do not look good for this enhancement for Katmai. It probably will not make it into the release. We’ll make a final assessment in a couple of weeks. Before we can consider this,…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    I really think that ANSI be damned, the syntax IS [NOT] is much more readable than IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM
    Definitely this should be implemented in T-SQL asap, it's already implemented in the query engine, there's just no easy way of writing it.

Feedback and Knowledge Base