Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
AskSQLTeam
Ask SQLTeam Question
0 Posts |
 Posted - 2002-02-08 : 10:26:12
|
| Abdul writes "Would you please help me to solve my problemUser1 sends a queryupdate table1 set col2=<some value> where col1=<some value>this query will update row 1,3,10 in the tableIn the mean time User2 sends the same query which will update row 2,4 & 5.In SQL server user2 have to wait untill user1 ends his transactioneither by issuing commit or rollback.Although user1 is updating row 1,3, 10 and user2 is updating row 2,4 & 5Is there any solution that user2 should not wait for user1's transaction to end ?is there any solution like rowlocking concept ?Waiting for your replyThanksAbdul Hameed |
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2002-02-08 : 10:30:43
|
| If you add the ROWLOCK hint to your UPDATE statements:UPDATE table1 WITH (ROWLOCK) SET col2='new value' WHERE col1='some value'Only the rows affected by the UPDATE will be locked. If 2 or more users are trying to UPDATE the same rows, some lock contention may occur, but it will be minor and shouldn't overly delay the UPDATE statements.Check Books Online for "ROWLOCK" and read about the other available locking hints. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
How to implement RowLocking