Posted by Alex Kuznetsov on 06/26/07 17:36

On Jun 26, 10:30 am, Altman <balt...@easy-automation.com> wrote:
> 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.

If you are on 2005, consider snapshot isolation.

http://sqlserver-tips.blogspot.com

[Back to original message]