Hi Jess,

OK, I've found the bit of MSDN that you're referring to. My understanding is that the programmers guide table you've found is wrong. Perhaps we need a DOCERR KB article about it (I couldn't find one just now). Garrett, Dave, Mike ...?

Cheers,

Andrew

---

>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
>>>>
>>>>

---

>>>>