Try to put them at the end of transaction. Make sure that you have a
"Eaton" <Eaton@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C8F58F4-311C-40AE-9012-CADA6BCE4CF5@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> You make a good point about long running transactions, but most of the
> updates that I am doing need to be all committed or all rolled back, so
> how
> woulld I break this up?
> Isn't there some way of having long transactions with multiple updates
> that
> would not seriously block other processes?
> Also what is "BTW"?
>
> Thanks.
> Greg
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>
>> Eaton
>> > Hi, I have tried using row-level locks to avoid different processes
>> > from
>> > blocking each other,
>>
>> Avoid using INSERTING/UPDATING large numbers of records in a single
>> transaction. Long running queries could be good candidates for blocking.
>> BTW Row-level locking SQL Server uses by default.
>>
>> > My process was even blocking itself???
>>
>> Perhaps the followng link might help you
>>
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/906344 >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Eaton" <Eaton@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:49335EF6-0506-45B6-9D86-19D558B65F0F@microsoft.com...
>> > Hi, I have tried using row-level locks to avoid different processes
>> > from
>> > blocking each other, but when viewed in Enterprise Mgr, thet are still
>> > showing up as page level locks and there is some serious blocking going
>> > on.
>> > My process was even blocking itself??? One of my stored procs has
>> > multiple
>> > updates and inserts and I specifed "with (pagelock)" --which seems to
>> > have
>> > been overridden.
>> >
>> > I've read other similar articles from other othwer there, but am
>> > looking
>> > for
>> > some helpful solutions to avoid th process blocking. Any ideas?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> > Eaton
>>
>>
>>