Is the NOLOCK (Sql Server hint) bad practice?

I'm in the business of making website and applications that are not mission critical -> eg. banking software, space flight, intensive care monitoring application, etc. You get the idea.

So, with that massive disclaimer, is it bad using the NOLOCK hint in some Sql statement? A number of years ago, it was suggested by a fellow Sql Administrator that I should use NOLOCK if I'm happy with a "dirty read" which will give me a bit more performance out of my system because each read doesn't lock the table/row/whatever.

I was also told that it's a great solution if I'm experiencing dead-locks. So, I started following that thought for a few years until a Sql guru was helping me with some random code and noticed all the NOLOCKS in my sql code. I was politely scolded and he tried to explain it to me (why it's not a good thing) and I sorta got lost. I felt that the essence of his explanation was 'it's a band-aid solution to a more serious problem .. especially if you're experiencing deadlocking. As such, fix the root of the problem'.

I did some googling recently about it and came across this post.

So, can some sql db guru sensei's please enlighten me?

Prior to working on Stack Overflow, I was against NOLOCK on the principal that you could potentially perform a SELECT with NOLOCK and get back results with data that may be out of date or inconsistent. A factor to think about is how many records may be inserted/updated at the same time another process may be selecting data from the same table. If this happens a lot then there's a high probability of deadlocks unless you use a database mode such as READ COMMITED SNAPSHOT.

I have since changed my perspective on the use of NOLOCK after witnessing how it can improve SELECT performance as well as eliminate deadlocks on a massively loaded SQL Server. There are times that you may not care that your data isn't exactly 100% committed and you need results back quickly even though they may be out of date.

Ask yourself a question when thinking of using NOLOCK:

Does my query include a table that has a high number of INSERT/UPDATE commands and do I care if the data returned from a query may be missing these changes at a given moment?

If the answer is no, then use NOLOCK to improve performance.

With NOLOCK hint, the transaction isolation level for the SELECT statement is READ UNCOMMITTED. This means that the query may see dirty and inconsistent data.

This is not a good idea to apply as a rule. Even if this dirty read behavior is OK for your mission critical web based application, a NOLOCK scan can cause 601 error which will terminate the query due to data movement as a result of lack of locking protection.

I suggest reading When Snapshot Isolation Helps and When It Hurts - the MSDN recommends using READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT rather than SNAPSHOT under most circumstances.

If you don't care about dirty reads (i.e. in a predominately READ situation), then NOLOCK is fine.

BUT, be aware that the majority of locking problems are due to not having the 'correct' indexes for your query workload (assuming the hardware is up to the task).

And the guru's explanation was correct. It is usually a band-aid solution to a more serious problem.

Edit: I'm definitely not suggesting that NOLOCK should be used. I guess I should have made that obviously clear. (I would only ever use it, in extreme circumstances where I had analysed that it was OK). AS an example, a while back I worked on some TSQL that had been sprinkled with NOLOCK to try and alleviate locking problems. I removed them all, implemented the correct indexes, and ALL of the deadlocks went away.