SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


LOCK


LOCK

Author
Message
agrawal.prakriti
agrawal.prakriti
Old Hand
Old Hand (338 reputation)Old Hand (338 reputation)Old Hand (338 reputation)Old Hand (338 reputation)Old Hand (338 reputation)Old Hand (338 reputation)Old Hand (338 reputation)Old Hand (338 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 338 Visits: 101
Comments posted to this topic are about the item LOCK
Paul White
Paul White
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 79890 Visits: 11400
With an exclusive lock, no other transactions can modify data (except for operations with NOLOCK hint or read uncommitted isolation level)

What???!!! w00t

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
SQLPerformance.com
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Joy Smith San
Joy Smith San
SSChampion
SSChampion (14K reputation)SSChampion (14K reputation)SSChampion (14K reputation)SSChampion (14K reputation)SSChampion (14K reputation)SSChampion (14K reputation)SSChampion (14K reputation)SSChampion (14K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 14364 Visits: 3208
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.....
SQLRNNR
SQLRNNR
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 144683 Visits: 18651
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???!!! w00t

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 - w00t

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, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Learn Extended Events

Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (329K reputation)SSC Guru (329K reputation)SSC Guru (329K reputation)SSC Guru (329K reputation)SSC Guru (329K reputation)SSC Guru (329K reputation)SSC Guru (329K reputation)SSC Guru (329K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 329995 Visits: 20110
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
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
Paul White
Paul White
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 79890 Visits: 11400
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
SQLPerformance.com
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Paul White
Paul White
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)SSC Guru (79K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 79890 Visits: 11400
Steve Jones - Editor (2/17/2010)
Edited. I'll clean up points in the am.

You're my favourite SSC Editor, Steve. Thanks. :-D



Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
SQLRNNR
SQLRNNR
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)SSC Guru (144K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 144683 Visits: 18651
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, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Learn Extended Events

Christian Buettner-167247
Christian Buettner-167247
SSCrazy Eights
SSCrazy Eights (8.5K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.5K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.5K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.5K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.5K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.5K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.5K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.5K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 8523 Visits: 3889
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
darko IS
darko IS
SSC-Enthusiastic
SSC-Enthusiastic (194 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (194 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (194 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (194 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (194 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (194 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (194 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (194 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 194 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 Sad

If you don't like how things are, change it! You're not a tree.
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum








































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search