Lock that reads original data BUT does not honour exclusive locks?

Hi all,
Is there a lock that is similar to NOLOCK hint by not honouring exclusive
locks, BUT reads original (committed) data (no dirty reads) instead?
Pls kindly advise. Help is much appreciated. TQ.Not in SQL Server 2000, but there will be in SQL Server 2005.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"HardKhor" <HardKhor@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:42536077-EBBC-4025-9035-952D44E556BB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> Is there a lock that is similar to NOLOCK hint by not honouring exclusive
> locks, BUT reads original (committed) data (no dirty reads) instead?
> Pls kindly advise. Help is much appreciated. TQ.

lock on a record?

Just wondering if there is a way to put a lock on a record? For example I
have the table below and a stored procedure reads the records in. Another
procedure increments the value in column 2 and then writes a new record with
this incremented value plus a bunch of other user interactions. The problem
is if a second user performs the operations before the first user is
finished, this incremented value gets thrown off. This is a .net web
application.
*******************************
* pri key * string * int * int *
*******************************
* 1 * abc001 * 3 * 6 *
* 2 * cde 002 * 5 * 9 *
user 1 gets cde 002 and with write back abc 003, note the increment.
user 2 also gets cde 002 as the latest record and also writes back abc 003.
this is incorrect. User 2 should write back abc 004.
If user 2 waited until user 1 was finish, this would take care of the proble
m.
Thanks,
--
Paul G
Software engineer.Errors in data concurrency will always be a issue for develoepr (especially
in WebApp as ong as the db-server will tell you that the row updated and you
have to reload the data, Like in SQL Server 2005)
Try reading this to be prepared for impementation.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/y8fyz6xy(en-us,vs.80).aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/i.../09/DataPoints/
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:A1112DF0-41C1-4DB7-8F8B-6AF601C877CB@.microsoft.com...
> Just wondering if there is a way to put a lock on a record? For example I
> have the table below and a stored procedure reads the records in. Another
> procedure increments the value in column 2 and then writes a new record
> with
> this incremented value plus a bunch of other user interactions. The
> problem
> is if a second user performs the operations before the first user is
> finished, this incremented value gets thrown off. This is a .net web
> application.
> *******************************
> * pri key * string * int * int *
> *******************************
> * 1 * abc001 * 3 * 6 *
> * 2 * cde 002 * 5 * 9 *
> user 1 gets cde 002 and with write back abc 003, note the increment.
> user 2 also gets cde 002 as the latest record and also writes back abc
> 003.
> this is incorrect. User 2 should write back abc 004.
> If user 2 waited until user 1 was finish, this would take care of the
> problem.
> Thanks,
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.|||Yep this does seem like it would be a common issue. Will take a look at the
article.
"Jens Sü?meyer" wrote:

> Errors in data concurrency will always be a issue for develoepr (especiall
y
> in WebApp as ong as the db-server will tell you that the row updated and y
ou
> have to reload the data, Like in SQL Server 2005)
> Try reading this to be prepared for impementation.
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/y8fyz6xy(en-us,vs.80).aspx
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/i.../09/DataPoints/
>
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:A1112DF0-41C1-4DB7-8F8B-6AF601C877CB@.microsoft.com...
>
>sql