LINQ to SQL Tips 7: Minimal update when you don't want optimistic concurrency checkhttp://blogs.msdn.com/dinesh.kulkarni/archive/2008/06/01/linq-to-sql-tips-7-minimal-update-when-you-don-t-want-optimistic-concurrency-check.aspxThe common guidance for updates is to keep the original values in view state so that you can recreate the object in its original state, Attach() it and then set the values that the user has modified. This works well for the most part. But at times, aen-USCommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)Dinesh Kularni : LINQ To SQL tips nexthttp://blogs.msdn.com/dinesh.kulkarni/archive/2008/06/01/linq-to-sql-tips-7-minimal-update-when-you-don-t-want-optimistic-concurrency-check.aspx#8594506Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:03:33 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:8594506Matthieu MEZIL<p>J'avais blogu&#233; sur les 5 premi&#232;res astuces de Dinesh Kularni . Voici les 3 suivants : LINQ to SQL Tips</p> re: LINQ to SQL Tips 7: Minimal update when you don't want optimistic concurrency checkhttp://blogs.msdn.com/dinesh.kulkarni/archive/2008/06/01/linq-to-sql-tips-7-minimal-update-when-you-don-t-want-optimistic-concurrency-check.aspx#8642996Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:33:44 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:8642996Will C<p>You can shift-click multiple properties(columns), including Update Check, in the designer and change them all at once. This is still tedious if you have a bunch of tables, but better than going row by row. I was not sure from your post whether you had found this...</p>