Can we actually restrict granularity of locking

Say if i want a rowlock or a paglock, will SQL Server actually grant that ?
Or are there circumstances that no SQL may override that and grab a higher
lock if it deems fit ?
ThanksYou can use Hints to ask for the granularity you want, but it is not 100%
guaranteed. If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock on
another row, you won't get the tablock.
You can also restrict lock granularity by using sp_indexoption. Read about
it in BOL.
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e514chVFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Say if i want a rowlock or a paglock, will SQL Server actually grant that
> ?
> Or are there circumstances that no SQL may override that and grab a higher
> lock if it deems fit ?
> Thanks
>|||"If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock on another
row, you won't get the tablock"..
Could you elaborate more on this ? What lock would i get then ?
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:Or72dWXFFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You can use Hints to ask for the granularity you want, but it is not 100%
> guaranteed. If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock
on
> another row, you won't get the tablock.
> You can also restrict lock granularity by using sp_indexoption. Read about
> it in BOL.
> --
> HTH
> --
> Kalen Delaney
> SQL Server MVP
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>
> "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e514chVFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
that[vbcol=seagreen]
higher[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OF5uF7ZFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock on
another
> row, you won't get the tablock"..
> Could you elaborate more on this ? What lock would i get then ?
From common sense I'd assume that you'll get the most granular lock that
doesn't conflict.
robert

> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:Or72dWXFFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
100%[vbcol=seagreen]
rowlock[vbcol=seagreen]
> on
about[vbcol=seagreen]
> that
> higher
>

Can we actually restrict granularity of locking

Say if i want a rowlock or a paglock, will SQL Server actually grant that ?
Or are there circumstances that no SQL may override that and grab a higher
lock if it deems fit ?
Thanks
You can use Hints to ask for the granularity you want, but it is not 100%
guaranteed. If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock on
another row, you won't get the tablock.
You can also restrict lock granularity by using sp_indexoption. Read about
it in BOL.
HTH
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e514chVFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Say if i want a rowlock or a paglock, will SQL Server actually grant that
> ?
> Or are there circumstances that no SQL may override that and grab a higher
> lock if it deems fit ?
> Thanks
>
|||"If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock on another
row, you won't get the tablock"..
Could you elaborate more on this ? What lock would i get then ?
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:Or72dWXFFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You can use Hints to ask for the granularity you want, but it is not 100%
> guaranteed. If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock
on[vbcol=seagreen]
> another row, you won't get the tablock.
> You can also restrict lock granularity by using sp_indexoption. Read about
> it in BOL.
> --
> HTH
> --
> Kalen Delaney
> SQL Server MVP
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>
> "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e514chVFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
that[vbcol=seagreen]
higher
>
|||"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OF5uF7ZFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock on
another
> row, you won't get the tablock"..
> Could you elaborate more on this ? What lock would i get then ?
From common sense I'd assume that you'll get the most granular lock that
doesn't conflict.
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:Or72dWXFFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
100%[vbcol=seagreen]
rowlock[vbcol=seagreen]
> on
about
> that
> higher
>

Can we actually restrict granularity of locking

Say if i want a rowlock or a paglock, will SQL Server actually grant that ?
Or are there circumstances that no SQL may override that and grab a higher
lock if it deems fit ?
ThanksYou can use Hints to ask for the granularity you want, but it is not 100%
guaranteed. If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock on
another row, you won't get the tablock.
You can also restrict lock granularity by using sp_indexoption. Read about
it in BOL.
--
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e514chVFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Say if i want a rowlock or a paglock, will SQL Server actually grant that
> ?
> Or are there circumstances that no SQL may override that and grab a higher
> lock if it deems fit ?
> Thanks
>|||"If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock on another
row, you won't get the tablock"..
Could you elaborate more on this ? What lock would i get then ?
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:Or72dWXFFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You can use Hints to ask for the granularity you want, but it is not 100%
> guaranteed. If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock
on
> another row, you won't get the tablock.
> You can also restrict lock granularity by using sp_indexoption. Read about
> it in BOL.
> --
> HTH
> --
> Kalen Delaney
> SQL Server MVP
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>
> "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e514chVFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Say if i want a rowlock or a paglock, will SQL Server actually grant
that
> > ?
> > Or are there circumstances that no SQL may override that and grab a
higher
> > lock if it deems fit ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>|||"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OF5uF7ZFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a rowlock on
another
> row, you won't get the tablock"..
> Could you elaborate more on this ? What lock would i get then ?
From common sense I'd assume that you'll get the most granular lock that
doesn't conflict.
robert
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:Or72dWXFFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > You can use Hints to ask for the granularity you want, but it is not
100%
> > guaranteed. If you ask for tablock for example, and someone has a
rowlock
> on
> > another row, you won't get the tablock.
> >
> > You can also restrict lock granularity by using sp_indexoption. Read
about
> > it in BOL.
> >
> > --
> > HTH
> > --
> > Kalen Delaney
> > SQL Server MVP
> > www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> >
> >
> > "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:e514chVFFHA.2564@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Say if i want a rowlock or a paglock, will SQL Server actually grant
> that
> > > ?
> > > Or are there circumstances that no SQL may override that and grab a
> higher
> > > lock if it deems fit ?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Can SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed be installed on a server with 4G

SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed is limited to 3GB RAM. Does that mean it cannot
use more than 3GB RAM under any circumstances, but it can be installed on a
server having more than 3GB total RAM; or, does that mean that it cannot be
installed or used on a server having more than 3GB RAM?
Hello,
You can install SQL Server workgroup edition ina machine with more than 3 GB
RAM and more than 2 CPU. But the limitation is SQL Server workgroup
edition can maximum use only 3 GB of RAM and 2 CPU.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/workgroup/sysreqs.mspx
Thanks
Hari
"Harvey Hall" <HarveyHall@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E12ACD19-E86F-4E8E-A088-25A42C3A0423@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed is limited to 3GB RAM. Does that mean it
> cannot
> use more than 3GB RAM under any circumstances, but it can be installed on
> a
> server having more than 3GB total RAM; or, does that mean that it cannot
> be
> installed or used on a server having more than 3GB RAM?
|||The statement means that Workgroup Edition will only use up to 3GB memory,
even if the server has more available. It will run on a server with 4GB.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Harvey Hall" <HarveyHall@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E12ACD19-E86F-4E8E-A088-25A42C3A0423@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed is limited to 3GB RAM. Does that mean it
> cannot
> use more than 3GB RAM under any circumstances, but it can be installed on
> a
> server having more than 3GB total RAM; or, does that mean that it cannot
> be
> installed or used on a server having more than 3GB RAM?

Can SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed be installed on a server with 4G

SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed is limited to 3GB RAM. Does that mean it cannot
use more than 3GB RAM under any circumstances, but it can be installed on a
server having more than 3GB total RAM; or, does that mean that it cannot be
installed or used on a server having more than 3GB RAM?Hello,
You can install SQL Server workgroup edition ina machine with more than 3 GB
RAM and more than 2 CPU. But the limitation is SQL Server workgroup
edition can maximum use only 3 GB of RAM and 2 CPU.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/workgroup/sysreqs.mspx
Thanks
Hari
"Harvey Hall" <HarveyHall@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E12ACD19-E86F-4E8E-A088-25A42C3A0423@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed is limited to 3GB RAM. Does that mean it
> cannot
> use more than 3GB RAM under any circumstances, but it can be installed on
> a
> server having more than 3GB total RAM; or, does that mean that it cannot
> be
> installed or used on a server having more than 3GB RAM?|||The statement means that Workgroup Edition will only use up to 3GB memory,
even if the server has more available. It will run on a server with 4GB.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Harvey Hall" <HarveyHall@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E12ACD19-E86F-4E8E-A088-25A42C3A0423@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed is limited to 3GB RAM. Does that mean it
> cannot
> use more than 3GB RAM under any circumstances, but it can be installed on
> a
> server having more than 3GB total RAM; or, does that mean that it cannot
> be
> installed or used on a server having more than 3GB RAM?

Can SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed be installed on a server with 4G

SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed is limited to 3GB RAM. Does that mean it cannot
use more than 3GB RAM under any circumstances, but it can be installed on a
server having more than 3GB total RAM; or, does that mean that it cannot be
installed or used on a server having more than 3GB RAM?Hello,
You can install SQL Server workgroup edition ina machine with more than 3 GB
RAM and more than 2 CPU. But the limitation is SQL Server workgroup
edition can maximum use only 3 GB of RAM and 2 CPU.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editio...up/sysreqs.mspx
Thanks
Hari
"Harvey Hall" <HarveyHall@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E12ACD19-E86F-4E8E-A088-25A42C3A0423@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed is limited to 3GB RAM. Does that mean it
> cannot
> use more than 3GB RAM under any circumstances, but it can be installed on
> a
> server having more than 3GB total RAM; or, does that mean that it cannot
> be
> installed or used on a server having more than 3GB RAM?|||The statement means that Workgroup Edition will only use up to 3GB memory,
even if the server has more available. It will run on a server with 4GB.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Harvey Hall" <HarveyHall@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E12ACD19-E86F-4E8E-A088-25A42C3A0423@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Ed is limited to 3GB RAM. Does that mean it
> cannot
> use more than 3GB RAM under any circumstances, but it can be installed on
> a
> server having more than 3GB total RAM; or, does that mean that it cannot
> be
> installed or used on a server having more than 3GB RAM?