> A read-committed transaction sees the database as it existed at the
> time the transaction started, combined with whatever changes it made
> itself, combined with any committed changes made by anyone else.
>
> A read-committed transaction is better when you need to see the latest
> version of records all the time (quite often used in a read-only
> read-committed combination).
>

Is that mean that read-committed allows lost update to happen? I'm
confused, I've read Helen's book and I get to conclusion that
read-committed could prevent lost update to happen but when I did some
experiment using 2 isql session, both using read-committed, lost
update still happen.

regards