Geek Answers Handbook

Is NOLOCK the default for SELECT statements in SQL Server 2005?

I only have SQL Server 2008R2 installed, although I need to communicate with clients since 2005.

[1] reports:

  • " NOLOCK

    This does not block any object. This is the default value for SELECT operations. This does not apply to INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE "

[2] does not seem to mention this, but my check in SSMS / SS 2008R2 shows that nolock is not the default prompt for SELECT.

Is WITH (NOLOCK) really the default in SQL Server 2005 SELECT?
Where is it written on BOL2005 / 2008?

Update:
In the "Where it is written" section, I expected to see answers / comments / explanations (or, better, quotes) for all parts cited from [1]:

  • "This does not block any object."

    Does SELECT without NOLOCK perform any locks in SQL Server 2005 (with the default isolation level of READ UNCOMMITTED)?
    ... in SQL Server 2008 (respectively with READ COMMITTED)?

    What I read on it, you can understand that NOLOCK allows you to ignore / bypass existing locks placed by another transaction ... but it was completely unclear whether (or trying to put) the current transaction (SELECT with NOLOCK) locks ...

    Is the READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level (which is used as a synonym for using the NOLOCK hint) imply the absence of any lock?

  • " INSERT, UPDATE DELETE"
    , ?
    , (INSERT, UPDATE DELETE) , SELECT ?
    ..

[1]
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/04/27/sql-server-2005-locking-hints-and-examples/
[2]
SQL Server 2005. (Transact-SQL)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187373(SQL.90).aspx

+2
3

.

NOLOCK . SQL Authority .

+11

, NOLOCK SELECT. , NOLOCK SELECT.

+2

, , ROWLOCK - SELECT NORMAL cicumstances. - SQL, . , , , , .. ..

-2

More articles:


All Articles