I mean, conceding into UPDATE - SQL that it locks record not the entire table.

>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.

Yeah. That is if the statement in the Chapter 17 "Programming in Shared Access" of Programmer's Guide ( last part of Commands Scope of Lock Table List), presumed typographically erroneous.

>
>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
>>>
>>>

---

>>>