Minimum transaction isolation level to avoid “Lost Updates”
问题 With SQL Server's transaction isolation levels, you can avoid certain unwanted concurrency issues, like dirty reads and so forth. The one I'm interested in right now is lost updates - the fact two transactions can overwrite one another's updates without anyone noticing it. I see and hear conflicting statements as to which isolation level at a minimum I have to choose to avoid this. Kalen Delaney in her "SQL Server Internals" book says (Chapter 10 - Transactions and Concurrency - Page 592): In