|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:10 AM
Points: 485,
Visits: 1,568
|
|
Thanks for article Roy. i am considering turning on these features on an application we have at my current company, but had a question.
If i alter my database with;
ALTER DATABASE MyDatabase SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON
ALTER DATABASE MyDatabase SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON
Do I need to alter all my existing stored procedures that make use of the SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED statement?
also, the hint with (NOLOCK), should those also be removed?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Fame
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:27 AM
Points: 3,280,
Visits: 6,623
|
|
Yes, you will need to remove those hints that you have given. It will defeat the purpose.
-Roy
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 22, 2013 8:00 AM
Points: 2,
Visits: 20
|
|
| I also got incorrect results. I could never get the other machine (or the local machine, for that matter) to show me the 2 once I had run transaction b.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 22, 2013 8:00 AM
Points: 2,
Visits: 20
|
|
Huonglien Nguyen (3/6/2009) I followed through the steps but eventhough after I executed "Commit tran a" the select * on dbo.test still showed me the old data: 1212121 and if I executed "Commit tran b" the select statement showed value 5. So I actually never saw the value 2 at all. Do you have any idea? Thanks.
I got the same results. The article seems very good and I have a much better understanding of SQL Server's row level versioning capabilities, but I got the same results here. Will continue reading for any insight into why this happens.
R
|
|
|
|