FreeTDS Development Group

[matthew.green AT datamartcomputing.com]

I would tend to agree. I haven't tried it yet with MS SQL Server but it works 
fine with Sybase in memory tables as FreeTDS doesn't know and doesn't need to 
know the difference. As far as I can see it's the same story with proxy 
tables, for example.

Cheers,

Matthew.

June 16 2015 1:38 PM, "Ray Rankins" <rrankins AT gothamconsulting.com> wrote:
> I'm curious as to why it wouldn't work to query an in-memory table.
> I don't have an environment available at the moment to test it out, but you 
> run queries against an
> in-memory table just like a regular table using standard SQL statements 
> (SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE,
> DELETE).
> What goes on behind the scenes to manage an in-memory table structure 
> should be transparent to the
> client application.
> 
> -Ray
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: FreeTDS [mailto:freetds-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of
>> Frediano Ziglio
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:55 AM
>> To: FreeTDS Development Group
>> Subject: Re: [freetds] FreeTDS and SQL 2014 In-Memory tables
>> 
>> Il 16/Giu/2015 00:43, "Alistair Roberts" 
>> <alistair.roberts AT ladbrokes.com.au>
>> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Has anyone tried FreeTDS and SQL 2014's in memory table option?
>>> 
>>> Like to know if it's possible to get it to work or not.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Al
>>> 
>> 
>> Still not supported. Obviously it's possible to get it to work. The point
>> is how quick you want and the involvement you want. As said is not
>> implemented so it has to be implemented.
>> 
>> Frediano
>> _______________________________________________
>> FreeTDS mailing list
>> FreeTDS AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/freetds
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FreeTDS mailing list
> FreeTDS AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/freetds