Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 123»»»

LOCK Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:15 PM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:31 PM
Points: 132, Visits: 101
Comments posted to this topic are about the item LOCK
Post #867687
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:16 PM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:59 AM
Points: 11,194, Visits: 11,135
With an exclusive lock, no other transactions can modify data (except for operations with NOLOCK hint or read uncommitted isolation level)

What???!!!

I want my point back!

Unless someone can post code or a reference to show that NOLOCK or READ UNCOMMITTED allows modification of data protected by an exclusive lock!

Grrr!




Paul White
SQL Server MVP
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Post #867706
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:52 PM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:25 AM
Points: 1,519, Visits: 2,550
I selected the options 1 & 4 and lost it.

I thought the below one is wrong.

"With an exclusive lock, no other transactions can modify data (except for operations with NOLOCK hint or read uncommitted isolation level)"

Though I am microsoft certified, I give a lot wrong answers now a days...haaaaa....I need to concentrate more and more.....


Post #867715
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:11 PM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:53 PM
Points: 21,617, Visits: 15,271
Paul White (2/17/2010)
With an exclusive lock, no other transactions can modify data (except for operations with NOLOCK hint or read uncommitted isolation level)

What???!!!

I want my point back!

Unless someone can post code or a reference to show that NOLOCK or READ UNCOMMITTED allows modification of data protected by an exclusive lock!

Grrr!


I agree with you. I happened to find the article that discusses this and was sure that that option was just a typo and poorly written. So I still selected it -

It should be:
read operations can take place only with the use of the NOLOCK hint or read uncommitted isolation level.



This is the only part of the question that I took issue with and am glad that others saw the same thing.




Jason AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server


SQL RNNR

Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden
VLFs and the Tran Log - Kimberly Tripp
Post #867721
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:22 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 9:02 PM
Points: 33,153, Visits: 15,284
Edited. I'll clean up points in the am.






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #867731
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:23 PM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:59 AM
Points: 11,194, Visits: 11,135
Joy Smith San (2/17/2010)
I thought the below one is wrong.

"With an exclusive lock, no other transactions can modify data (except for operations with NOLOCK hint or read uncommitted isolation level)"

I agree with you
It's wrong. Not merely badly phrased...wrong.

Paul




Paul White
SQL Server MVP
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Post #867732
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:24 PM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:59 AM
Points: 11,194, Visits: 11,135
Steve Jones - Editor (2/17/2010)
Edited. I'll clean up points in the am.

You're my favourite SSC Editor, Steve. Thanks.




Paul White
SQL Server MVP
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Post #867733
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:27 PM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:53 PM
Points: 21,617, Visits: 15,271
Steve Jones - Editor (2/17/2010)
Edited. I'll clean up points in the am.



That was quick.




Jason AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server


SQL RNNR

Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden
VLFs and the Tran Log - Kimberly Tripp
Post #867736
Posted Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:08 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:45 AM
Points: 2,834, Visits: 3,866
Steve Jones - Editor (2/17/2010)
Edited. I'll clean up points in the am.


Sorry, but option 1 is still wrong.
Exclusive locks prevent access to a resource by concurrent transactions


Read access is not prevented in case of NOLOCK or READ UNCOMMITTED

So either this option needs to be removed from the correct options, or it needs to be reworded to show that write access to a resource is prevented and not read access.


Best Regards,
Chris Büttner
Post #867785
Posted Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:40 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:11 AM
Points: 36, Visits: 184
Christian Buettner-167247 (2/18/2010)
Steve Jones - Editor (2/17/2010)
Edited. I'll clean up points in the am.


Sorry, but option 1 is still wrong.
Exclusive locks prevent access to a resource by concurrent transactions


Read access is not prevented in case of NOLOCK or READ UNCOMMITTED

So either this option needs to be removed from the correct options, or it needs to be reworded to show that write access to a resource is prevented and not read access.


I agree. Because of that I got wrong answer


If you don't like how things are, change it! You're not a tree.
Post #867803
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 123»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse