i have date '2016-01-01' and number = 5

i need query to result

2016-01-01

2016-01-02

2016-01-03

2016-01-04

2016-01-05

Look into DATEADD and a number table

First, build the following function. It's the "Swiss Army Knife" of T-SQL and you'll find many more uses for it. It's a high performance iTVF (inline Table Valued Function) as opposed to a much slower scalar or mTVF (multi-statement Table Valued Function) and your DBA should have no issues with implementing it.

```
CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[fnTally]
/**********************************************************************************************************************
Purpose:
Return a column of BIGINTs from @ZeroOrOne up to and including @MaxN with a max value of 1 Trillion.
As a performance note, it takes about 00:02:10 (hh:mm:ss) to generate 1 Billion numbers to a throw-away variable.
Usage:
--===== Syntax example (Returns BIGINT)
SELECT t.N
FROM dbo.fnTally(@ZeroOrOne,@MaxN) t
;
Notes:
1. Based on Itzik Ben-Gan's cascading CTE (cCTE) method for creating a "readless" Tally Table source of BIGINTs.
Refer to the following URLs for how it works and introduction for how it replaces certain loops.
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/62867/
http://sqlmag.com/sql-server/virtual-auxiliary-table-numbers
2. To start a sequence at 0, @ZeroOrOne must be 0 or NULL. Any other value that's convertable to the BIT data-type
will cause the sequence to start at 1.
3. If @ZeroOrOne = 1 and @MaxN = 0, no rows will be returned.
5. If @MaxN is negative or NULL, a "TOP" error will be returned.
6. @MaxN must be a positive number from >= the value of @ZeroOrOne up to and including 1 Billion. If a larger
number is used, the function will silently truncate after 1 Billion. If you actually need a sequence with
that many values, you should consider using a different tool. ;-)
7. There will be a substantial reduction in performance if "N" is sorted in descending order. If a descending
sort is required, use code similar to the following. Performance will decrease by about 27% but it's still
very fast especially compared with just doing a simple descending sort on "N", which is about 20 times slower.
If @ZeroOrOne is a 0, in this case, remove the "+1" from the code.
DECLARE @MaxN BIGINT;
SELECT @MaxN = 1000;
SELECT DescendingN = @MaxN-N+1
FROM dbo.fnTally(1,@MaxN);
8. There is no performance penalty for sorting "N" in ascending order because the output is explicity sorted by
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL))
Revision History:
Rev 00 - Unknown - Jeff Moden
- Initial creation with error handling for @MaxN.
Rev 01 - 09 Feb 2013 - Jeff Moden
- Modified to start at 0 or 1.
Rev 02 - 16 May 2013 - Jeff Moden
- Removed error handling for @MaxN because of exceptional cases.
Rev 03 - 22 Apr 2015 - Jeff Moden
- Modify to handle 1 Trillion rows for experimental purposes.
**********************************************************************************************************************/
(@ZeroOrOne BIT, @MaxN BIGINT)
RETURNS TABLE WITH SCHEMABINDING AS
RETURN WITH
E1(N) AS (SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT 1) --10E1 or 10 rows
, E4(N) AS (SELECT 1 FROM E1 a, E1 b, E1 c, E1 d) --10E4 or 10 Thousand rows
,E12(N) AS (SELECT 1 FROM E4 a, E4 b, E4 c) --10E12 or 1 Trillion rows
SELECT N = 0 WHERE ISNULL(@ZeroOrOne,0)= 0 --Conditionally start at 0.
UNION ALL
SELECT TOP(@MaxN) N = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) FROM E12 -- Values from 1 to @MaxN
;
```

Then, problems like what you've posted become child's play...

```
--===== This is just a setup for the demo of this problem
DECLARE @SomeDate DATE
,@Days INT
;
SELECT @SomeDate = '2016-01-01'
,@Days = 5
;
--===== This solves the problem
SELECT SomeDate = DATEADD(dd,t.N,@SomeDate)
FROM dbo.fnTally(0,@Days-1) t
;
```