Category: Bugs

Shane O’Neill looks at a few Connect items relating to indexed views:

First contender: Inserting to an indexed view can fail

What would happen if I told you that, with regards to a view, sometimes inserting into the table could fail? Well that’s what this Connect item from Dave_Ballantyne found, along with the reason.

Click through for more bugs.

Adam Machanic peruses the top-rated Connect items:

Magic numbers! That sounds cool. Except it’s not. It’s a horrible drain on readability and a pox on the manageability of your code. But we need them, because every database out there has “lookup tables” with specific values that we need to predicate on throughout the code base. SQL Server could solve this problem once and for all by allowing users to promote these values to named enumerators. How cool would that be?!? 220 votes, nine years.

And finally, one more from Mr. Ben-Gan, a clever idea for improving TOP with the OVER clause. I love the OVER clause. I love TOP. Their offspring would be beautiful indeed… 180 voters over the past nine years have shared in this sentiment.

This is an interesting list.

Lori Edwards wants to fix one of the most annoying error messages in SQL Server history:

The Connect item that I’m promoting today is Connect #339410 : Please fix the “String or binary data would be truncated” message to give the column name. This Connect item was opened in 2008 and has 1,328 upvotes. If we can create virtual realities, we should be able to add a column name to an error message. Help us Microsoft, you’re our only hope.

This error message is incredibly annoying, particularly because it seems the engine should know which record has an error and on which column that error is.  We finally got information on which row caused a primary or unique key constraint violation, and that was helpful; this would be at least as helpful.

Aaron Bertrand has a series of Connect items of interest:

There are so many active Connect items, it’s difficult to choose just one, but after spending some time looking at the generate_series function in PostgreSQL, the one at the top of my list right now is this suggestion from Erland Sommarskog (blog):

Connect #258733 : Add a built-in table of numbers

I think it would be cheap and easy for SQL Server to provide a defaut table of numbers, always in memory, just like any other catalog view or DMV. This thing can use compression now, regardless of edition, so even a table with 2 billion rows will only take 13 MB, and should be easy to populate either at start-up or on first use. I could list out all of the potential uses for a numbers table, but they’re fairly well documented in the following sources (and most use cases don’t need anywhere near 2 billion values, so maybe the range could be defined using a sys.configurations or database-level SCOPED CONFIGURATION setting)

Click through for additional Connect items, and please vote on any Connect items which catch your eye.