When using CS in application A1, there will be an IS (intent share) table lock.
在应用程序a 1中使用CS时，将有一个IS (intentshare)表锁定。
The only alternative to a lock on every new row is a table lock (since there are no page locks in DB2).
对于每个新行之上的锁，惟一可以替代的是表锁(DB 2中没有页锁)。
If after replacing these with a single table lock, the MAXLOCKS value is no longer exceeded, lock escalation stops.
如果用一个表锁替换这些行锁，将不再会超出maxlocks值，那么锁升级就会停止。
This causes DB2 to use a table lock for all subsequent SQL statements using the table, until the locksize is changed back to ROW.
这将导致DB 2为随后使用该表的所有sql语句使用一个表锁，直到locksize参数改回到ROW。
Because the acquired lock does not persist across transaction boundaries, the import utility loses its IX table lock and must request another lock after each commit.
因为获得的锁不会跨事务边界存在，所以import工具将失去它的IX表锁，并且必须在每次提交之后请求另一个锁。
What are the consequences of using the table lock option with a fast load destination?
使用表锁选项与快速加载目的地的后果是什么？
The Database Engine chooses the appropriate lock and can escalate the lock from a row or page lock to a table lock.
数据库引擎将选择相应的锁，并且可以将锁从行锁或页锁升级到表锁。
If a transaction obtains a row lock for a row, the transaction also acquires a table lock for the corresponding table.
如果一个事务获得了一行的行锁，那么这个事务同时获得了相关的表的锁。
So, you can address this with perhaps a table lock, or some other syncing field in the database to ensure duplicates don't appear.
因此，您可以通过表锁或数据库中的其他同步字段来解决这个问题，以确保不会出现重复项。
So, you can address this with perhaps a table lock, or some other syncing field in the database to ensure duplicates don't appear.
因此，您可以通过表锁或数据库中的其他同步字段来解决这个问题，以确保不会出现重复项。
应用推荐