Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 434075
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 12, 20262026-05-12T20:14:15+00:00 2026-05-12T20:14:15+00:00

While altering a table (removing a column) in SQL Server 2008, I clicked the

  • 0

While altering a table (removing a column) in SQL Server 2008, I clicked the Generate Change Script button and I noticed that the change script it generated drops the column, says “go” and then runs an additional ALTER TABLE statement that appears to set the lock escalation for the table to “TABLE”. Example:

ALTER TABLE dbo.Contract SET (LOCK_ESCALATION = TABLE)

I should also note that this is the last thing the change script is doing. What is it doing here and why is it setting the LOCK_ESCALATION to TABLE?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-12T20:14:15+00:00Added an answer on May 12, 2026 at 8:14 pm

    “Lock Escalation” is how SQL handles locking for large updates. When SQL is going to change a lot of rows, it’s more efficient for the database engine to take fewer, larger locks (e.g. entire table) instead of locking many smaller things (e.g. row locks).

    But this can be problematic when you have a huge table, because taking a lock on the entire table may lock out other queries for a long time. That’s the tradeoff: many small-granularity locks are slower than fewer (or one) coarse-grained locks, and having multiple queries locking different parts of a table creates the possibility for deadlock if one process is waiting on another.

    There is a table-level option, LOCK_ESCALATION, new in SQL 2008, which allows control of lock escalation. The default, “TABLE” allows locks to escalate all the way to the table level. DISABLE prevents lock escalation to the entire table in most cases. AUTO allows table locks except if the table is partitioned, in which case locks are only made up to the partition level. See this blog post for more info.

    I suspect that the IDE adds this setting when re-creating a table because TABLE is the default in SQL 2008. Note that LOCK_ESCALATION isn’t supported in SQL 2005, so you’ll need to strip it if trying to run the script on a 2005 instance. Also, since TABLE is the default, you can safely remove that line when re-running your script.

    Also note that, in SQL 2005 before this setting was present, all locks could escalate to table level– in other words, “TABLE” was the only setting on SQL 2005.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 215k
  • Answers 215k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Your best option is probably using pre-commit-hook. You can find… May 12, 2026 at 10:58 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Well, this is one reason why you should have a… May 12, 2026 at 10:58 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer There's little problem in C++, because the amount of template… May 12, 2026 at 10:58 pm

Related Questions

I am using MySQL and I have a table with an index that is
I am working with SQL Server (I am a SQL Server noob) and trying
Several colleagues and I are faced with an architectural decision that has serious performance
I have two already-existing tables which look (in part) roughly like this: CREATE TABLE

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.