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


LOCK


LOCK

Author
Message
agrawal.prakriti
agrawal.prakriti
SSC-Enthusiastic
SSC-Enthusiastic (158 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (158 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (158 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (158 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (158 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (158 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (158 reputation)SSC-Enthusiastic (158 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 158 Visits: 101
Comments posted to this topic are about the item LOCK
Paul White
Paul White
SSCoach
SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 15978 Visits: 11355
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
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 3250 Visits: 3200
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-Dedicated
SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 32783 Visits: 18559
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

Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (63K reputation)SSC Guru (63K reputation)SSC Guru (63K reputation)SSC Guru (63K reputation)SSC Guru (63K reputation)SSC Guru (63K reputation)SSC Guru (63K reputation)SSC Guru (63K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 63656 Visits: 19115
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
SSCoach
SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 15978 Visits: 11355
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
SSCoach
SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)SSCoach (15K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 15978 Visits: 11355
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-Dedicated
SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 32783 Visits: 18559
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

Christian Buettner-167247
Christian Buettner-167247
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 3607 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
Valued Member
Valued Member (58 reputation)Valued Member (58 reputation)Valued Member (58 reputation)Valued Member (58 reputation)Valued Member (58 reputation)Valued Member (58 reputation)Valued Member (58 reputation)Valued Member (58 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 58 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