Posted by Altman on 06/26/07 15:30

On Jun 23, 4:10 am, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.se> wrote:
> Oscar Santiesteban (o_santieste...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> > Try using
> > select * from table (NOLOCK)
> > where xxxx = xxxx
> > This will not lock the database as it reads.
>
> This may on the other hand lead to that the query returns incorrect
> results, which may even more seroius. There are situations where NOLOCK
> is called for, but you need to understand the implications. If you
> don't - don't try it.
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

I Think that the nolock will work for me. I understand the
implications and I think that my program will be able to handle it.
What I would've liked better was something like read committed but
didn't lock records.

[Back to original message]