NOLOCK usage

If we have a select statment using the NOLOCK hint ...
will it prevent other processes from
UPDATING/INSERTING/DELETING any of the table(s) it is
using within it query? Would really like to hear the
answer from an MS tech for validity purposes. Thanks and
have a great day.Jay,
From the BOL on FROM:
NOLOCK is equal to READUNCOMMITTED
READUNCOMMITTED
Specifies that dirty reads are allowed. This means that no shared locks are
issued and no exclusive locks are honored. Allowing dirty reads can result
in higher concurrency, but at the cost of lower consistency. If
READUNCOMMITTED is specified, it is possible to read an uncommitted
transaction or to read a set of pages rolled back in the middle of the read;
therefore, error messages may result. For more information about isolation
levels, see SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL.
So, it absolutely will not prevent other processes from doing whatever they
want to the tables. One interesting error that you can get using NOLOCK is
Error 601 "could not continue scan due to data movement."
Russell Fields (not from Microsoft)
"Jay Kusch" <Jay.Kusch@.mm-games.com> wrote in message
news:014001c3927d$c453a810$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> If we have a select statment using the NOLOCK hint ...
> will it prevent other processes from
> UPDATING/INSERTING/DELETING any of the table(s) it is
> using within it query? Would really like to hear the
> answer from an MS tech for validity purposes. Thanks and
> have a great day.