Advertisement

Comparing the Overhead Requirements of Database Transaction Models

  • Andrew G. Fry
  • Hugh E. Williams
Conference paper
  • 489 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2736)

Abstract

A transaction model defines the behaviour, constraints, integrity, inter-relationships, and robustness of database transactions. Such models are generally evaluated indirectly, often by experiments on a database monitor that implements the model, or by workload simulation. In this paper, we propose a novel method of comparing transaction models based on functions of architectural- and isolation-work. Using these functions, we show the complexity of ten transaction models and discuss the relationship between them. We conclude that our architectural- and isolation-work functions can be used to reason about transaction models and as one measure for selecting the model appropriate to specific applications.

Keywords

Database System Concurrency Control Transaction Model Database Transaction Architectural Work 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bhargava, B.: Concurrency control in database systems. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering 11, 3–16 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gray, J., Reuter, A.: Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomasian, A.: Concurrency control: Methods, performance and analysis. ACM Computing Surveys 30, 70–119 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.B.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 2nd edn. Benjamin-Cummings, Redwood City (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein, P.A., Newcomer, E.: Principles of Transaction Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elmagarmid, A.K. (ed.): Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, vol. 1. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lynch, N., Merritt, M., Weihl, W., Fekete, A.: Atomic Transactions. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barghouti, N.S., Kaiser, G.E.: Concurrency control in advanced database applications. ACM Computing Surveys 23, 269–317 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weikham, G., Schek, H.J.: 13. [6] Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Climent, A., Bertran, M., Nicolau, M.: Database concurrency control on a sharednothing architecture using speculative lock modes. In: Advances in Database and Information Systems, Proc. 5th East European Conf. (2001) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franaszek, P., Robinson, J.T.: Limitations of concurrency in transaction processing. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 10, 1–28 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tay, Y.C., Goodman, N., Suri, R.: Locking performance in centralized databases. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 10, 415–462 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tay, Y.C., Suri, R., Goodman, N.: A mean value performance model for locking in databases: The no-waiting case. Journal of the ACM 32, 618–651 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tay, Y.C., Suri, R., Goodman, N.: A mean value performance model for locking in databases: The waiting case. Journal of the ACM 31, 311–322 (1984)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomasian, A.: Two-phase locking performance and its thrashing behavior. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 18, 579–625 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ryu, I.K., Thomasian, A.: Analysis of database performance with dynamic locking. Journal of the ACM 37, 491–523 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu, P.S., Dias, D.M., Lavenberg, S.S.: On the analytical modeling of database concurrency control. Journal of the ACM 40, 831–872 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Agrawal, D., Abbadi, A.E., Jeffers, R.: An approach to eliminate transaction blocking in locking protocols. In: Proc. ACM Principles of Database Systems, pp. 223–235 (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Agrawal, D., Bruno, J.L., Abbadi, A.E., Krishnaswamy, V.: Relative serializability: An approach for relaxing the atomicity of transactions. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of Data, pp. 139–149 (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reed, D.P.: Naming and synchronization in a decentralized computer system. Tech. Report MIT/LCS/TR-205, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1978)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramamritham, K., Pu, C.: A formal characterisation of Epsilon serializability. IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Engineering 7, 997–1007 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Neil, P.E.: The Escrow transactional method. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 11, 405–430 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chrysanthis, P.K., Ramamritham, K.: ACTA: A framework for specifying and reasoning about transaction structure and behavior. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of Data, pp. 194–203 (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chrysanthis, P.K., Ramamritham, K.: 10. In: [6], pp. 349–398Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramamritham, K., Chryanthis, P.K.: A taxonomy of correctness criteria in database applications. VLDB Journal 5, 85–97 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chrysanthis, P.K., Ramamritham, K.: Synthesis of extended transaction models using ACTA. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 19, 450–491 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wächter, H., Reuter, A.: 7. In: [6], pp. 219–264 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaiser, G.E., Pu, C.: 8. In: [6], pp. 265–296Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kühn, E., Puntigam, F., Elmagrmid, A.K.: 9. In: [6], pp. 297–348Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fry, A.G.: Expressing database transactions as atomic-operations. In: Seventh International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew G. Fry
    • 1
  • Hugh E. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and Information TechnologyRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations