<p>When writing a SQL statement in SQL Server 2005, does the READUNCOMMITTED query hint imply NOLOCK or do I have to specify it manually too?</p>

<p>So is:</p>

<pre><code>With (NoLock, ReadUnCommitted)
</code></pre>

<p>the same as:</p>

<pre><code>With (ReadUnCommitted)
</code></pre>

[{'answer_id': 32556, 'author': 'Nick Berardi', 'author_id': 17, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/17', 'pm_score': -1, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>I think you can say that</p>\n\n<p>ReadUnCommitted has the abilities of NoLock</p>\n\n<p>However you cannot say that</p>\n\n<p>NoLock has the abilities of ReadUnCommitted</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 32559, 'author': 'Galwegian', 'author_id': 3201, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3201', 'pm_score': 1, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>According to Kalen Delaney...</p>\n\n<p>The NOLOCK hint has nothing to do with the index options. The hint tells SQL\nServer not to request locks when doing SELECT operations, so there will be\nno conflict with data that is already locked. The index options just tell\nSQL Server that this level of locking is allowed, when locking is going to\noccur. For example, if ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS was off, the only possible locks\nwould be page or table locks. The index options don't force locks to be\nheld, they just control the possible size of the locks.</p>\n\n<p>In answer to the question in your subject, the NOLOCK hint and the\nREADUNCOMMITTED hint are equivalent.</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 33332, 'author': 'SQLMenace', 'author_id': 740, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/740', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': True, 'text': '<p>Yes they are one and the same</p>\n'}]
['https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32550', 'https://Stackoverflow.com', 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/383/']