Hi Jess,

My edition of the MSDN (Jul 2000) says Unlike REPLACE, UPDATE - SQL uses record locking ... in the UPDATE-SQL topic and Unlike DELETE, DELETE - SQL uses record locking ... in the DELETE - SQL topic. I'm not sure what you mean by "maybe it's typo error on the part of MS based on reading it's related command DELETE - SQL which locks record also"

My reading of the matter is that the SQL-based commands are slower, but do not lock the table - only the rows they change.

Cheers,

Andrew

---

>Hello Andrew!
>
>Using the same reference, as with UPDATE - SQL, maybe it's typo error on the part of MS based on reading it's related command DELETE - SQL which locks record also. As with the REPLACE, the statement says "when updating multiple records in a table" which to me, it does mean that if it's more than one record, it locks entire table but one record locks the current record only.
>
>>Hi Jess,
>>
>>Here's a quote from the MSDN UPDATE - SQL topic:
>>
>>Unlike REPLACE, UPDATE - SQL uses record locking when updating multiple records in a table opened for shared access. This reduces record contention in multiuser situations, but may reduce performance. For maximum performance, open the table for exclusive use or use FLOCK( ) to lock the table.
>>
>>Which, to me, says that UPDATE - SQL does not lock the whole table.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Andrew
>>
>>

---

>>