DELP System: Tracking Deadlocks and Phantoms in Databaseas

  • Cristea Boboila
  • Simona Boboila
  • Constantin Lupsoiu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 28)


Database systems are the core of applications from various fields. In many of these, the well-functioning of databases can be extremely important, even critical. Deadlocks and phantoms are some of the problems that may appear in database systems, leading to information loss, with a highly detrimental impact. This paper presents DELP (DEadLocks and Phantoms), a tracking system used to study different database access scenarios in which deadlocks and phantoms may appear.


Database System Database Management System Repeatable Read Caller Module Isolation Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Chen X, Davare A, Hsieh H, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A, Watanabe Y (2005) Simulation based deadlock analysis for system level designs. In: 42nd Design Automation Conference, Anaheim, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Decker H (2002) Translating advanced integrity checking technology to SQL. Database integrity: Challenges and solutions. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elkan C (1990) Independence of logic database queries and update. In: 9th symposium on principles of database systems, ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems, pp 154–160Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Godfrey P, Gryz J, Zuzarte C (2001) Exploiting constraint-like data characterizations in query optimization. In: ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, pp 582–592Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaveh N, Emmerich W (2001) Deadlock detection in distributed object systems. In: Joint proceedings of the 8th European software engineering conference and the 9th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering, Vienna, Austria, pp 44–51Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobayashi N (2000) Type systems for concurrent processes: From deadlock-freedom to livelock-freedom, time-boundedness. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, vol 1872/2000, p 365Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krivokapic N, Kemper A, Gudes E (1999) Deadlock detection in distributed database systems: A new algorithm and a comparative performance analysis. VLDB J 8(2):79–100Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rakow T, Gu J, Neuhold E (1990) Serializability in object – oriented database systems. In: 6th international conference on data engineering, pp 112–120Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reimer M (1983) Solving the phantom problem by predicative optimistic concurrency control. In: 9th international conference on very large data bases, pp 81–88Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ross KA, Srivastava D, Sudarshan S (1996) Materialized view maintenance and integrity constraint checking: trading space for time. In: ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, pp 447–458Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silberschatz A, Korth HF, Sudarshan S (2005) Database system concepts, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sybase SQL Server™ Reference Manual. pdfdocs/srg1100e/sqlref.pdf. Accessed: March 15th, 2007
  13. 13.
    Vielle L, Bayer P, Küchenhoff V, Lefebvre A (1999) 0Checking integrity and materializing views by update propagation in the EKS system. In: Materialized views: techniques, implementations, and applications, MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wetzel G, Toni F (1998) Semantic query optimization through abduction and constraint handling. In: 3rd international conference on flexible query answering systems, pp 366–381Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristea Boboila
    • 1
  • Simona Boboila
    • 1
  • Constantin Lupsoiu
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of CraiovaRomaniae-mail: boboilaθ

Personalised recommendations