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.

Simon Richardson

My feedback

  1. 1,252 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

    109 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Richardson supported this idea  · 
  2. 681 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

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

    Upvotes: 72

    <=-=Mar 10 2016 11:26AM=-=>

    It’s a shame that this was submitted as just a “suggestion”. It should actually be listed as a “bug” because there’s only a comparatively small set of use cases where enumeration of the result set of elements is not important.

    <=-=Mar 11 2016 12:47PM=-=>

    I agree that an order column is required; one example use case is where two lists are passed in, and ordinal positions in one list correspond to positions in the other.

    <=-=Mar 11 2016 3:12PM=-=>

    Please see the related suggestion: STRING_SPLIT needs “RemoveEmptyEntries” option, like String.Split in .NET ( https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/2462002/ ).

    <=-=Mar 12 2016 12:02PM=-=>

    This kind of function is primarily needed for de-serializing previously serialized arrays of values of any type format-able as text.
    I therefore recommend to have the result set of this function work excellent with this use-case.

    With de-serialized arrays there is a need to…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Simon Richardson commented  · 

    Please do not implement this Idea, why? well personally I am in the camp of the 80 / 20 rule that is we waited a long time to get this option and it performs very well in most cases. Don't get me wrong I know there are cases where developers won't / can't change the input code and the DBA's do their best to accommodate, and unfortunately because of this they get more 'coverage' Few talk about the hundreds of things that work well but we all like to shout about the stuff that is tough or even possibly wrong. So if the .net split_string works so well use that or implement a CLR to cover what this does not do or clean your inputs before the DB or indeed ask MS to new String_to_array option. This works and works well please do not cripple it for the exceptions.

Feedback and Knowledge Base