Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Here's one for the SQL Server gurus: if I set my SQL Server 2008 transaction isolation level to READ UNCOMMITTED, does that also affect the index pages?

E.g. using ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED, what effect (if any) do the ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS or ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS on an index have??

ALTER INDEX IX_FirstName ON Employee

I can't seem to find a definitive answer anywhere - the MSDN documentation on the transaction isolation levels really only talks about the data pages....

share|improve this question
What problem are you solving? Maybe snapshot isolation is a better solution? – A-K Feb 22 '12 at 15:03
Just a question by a coworker :-) for now – marc_s Feb 22 '12 at 15:35
up vote 5 down vote accepted

No. It doesn't affect anything regarding the internal management within SQL Server. You're setting that connection for you, for your queries. SQL Server manages it's own locking it's own way.

Why would you turn off page and row locking on an index? You're more likely to see more severe locking than if you let SQL Server manage that index as it sees fit. By setting both those values to OFF, you just told SQL Server to take a table lock out. Considering you're also messing with read_uncommitted, I'll bet you don't want that.

If you're asking does read_uncommitted allow you to get dirty reads on indexes, yes. It does.

share|improve this answer
OK, thanks - that sort of / partially confirms my gut feeling :) – marc_s Feb 22 '12 at 14:50

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.