Checking Integrity Constraints in Multidatabase Systems with Nested Transactions
This paper proposes various strategies for the checking of integrity constraints in multidatabase systems which support nested transactions. The solution presented in  for centralized environments is extended. The principle of this solution consists of designating a subtransaction which controls the checking of each integrity constraint. This sub-transaction is the smallest common ancestor (within the nested transaction tree) of all the sub-transactions which might violate the constraint. In the case of a multidatabase, it is necessary to take into account the constraint structure and the localization of the sub-transactions, to choose the site where the checking should be performed in order to minimize data transfers through the network. For this purpose, different checking strategies are presented depending on the type of the constraint to be checked.
KeywordsIntegrity constraints Nested transactions Multidatabase systems Consistency checking Distributed transactions
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.J. Besancenot, M. Cart, J. Ferrié, R. Gerraoui, P. Pucheral, and B. Traverson. Les systémes transactionnnels. Hermes, Paris, 1997. 317Google Scholar
- 4.B. T. Blaustein. Enforcing Database Assertions. PhDt hesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1981. 317Google Scholar
- 5.E. Boertjes, P. W. P. J. Grefen, J. Vonk, and P. M. G. Apers. An Architecture for Nested Transactions Support on Standard Database Systems. In G. Quirchmayr, E. Schweighofer, and T. J. M. Bench-Capon, editors, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA’98, volume 1460 of LNCS, pages 448–459, Vienna (Austria), August 1998. Springer-Verlag. 317, 318Google Scholar
- 6.S. Conrad, M. Höding, S. Janssen, G. Saake, I. Schmitt, and C. Türker. Integrity Constraints in Federated Database Design. Technical Report 2, Fakultät fur Informatik, Universität Magdeburg, April 1996. 316Google Scholar
- 7.B. Defude and H. Martin. Integrity checking for Nested Transactions. In R. Wagner and H. Thoma, editors, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA’96, pages 147–152, Zurich (Switzerland), September 1996. IEEE-CS Press. 317Google Scholar
- 8.A. Doucet, S. Gançarski, C. León, and M. Rukoz. Nested Transactions with Integrity Constraints. In G. Saake, K. Schwarz, and C. Türker, editors, TDD’99, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, September 27-30, 1999, Selected Papers, volume 1773 of LNCS, pages 130–149, Berlin, 2000. Springer-Verlag. 316, 317, 318, 326Google Scholar
- 11.S. Grufman, F. Samson, S. M. Embury, P. M. D. Gray, and T. Risch. Distributing Semantic Constraints Between Heterogeneous Databases. In Alex Gray and PerÅke Larson, editors, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 1997, April 7-11, pages 33–42, Birmingham U. K., April 1997. IEEE Computer Society. 316, 324, 326Google Scholar
- 12.A. Gupta and J. Widom. Local Verification of Global Integrity Constraints in Distributed Databases. In P. Buneman and S. Jajodia, editors, Proc. of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, volume 22 of ACM SIGMOD Record, pages 49–58, Washington, D. C.(USA), May 1993. ACM Press. 316, 324, 326Google Scholar
- 13.J. E. B. Moss. Nested Transactions: An Approach to Reliable Distributed Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985. 317, 319Google Scholar
- 14.M. Rukoz, C. León, and M. Rívas. SIMA: A Java Tool for Constructing Image Processing Applications on a Heterogeneous Network. to appear in Parallel and Distributed Computing Practices. Special Issue on Distributed Object Systems. 317, 318, 326Google Scholar
- 16.A. P. Sheth, M. Rusinkiewicz, and G. Karabatis. Using Polytransactions to Manage Interdependent Data. In A. K. Elmagarmid, editor, Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, pages 555–581. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1992. 317Google Scholar
- 17.G. Weikum, A. Deacon, W. Schaad, and H.-J. Schek. Open Nested Transaction in Federated Database Systems. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 16(2):4–7, June 1993. 319Google Scholar