Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Weak Consistency Models for Replicated Data

  • Alan Fekete
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1537

Synonyms

Copy divergence; Weak memory consistency

Definition

Some designs for a distributed database system involve having several copies or replicas for a data item, at different sites, with algorithms that do not update these replicas in unison. In such a system, clients may detect a discrepancy between the copies. Each particular weak consistency model describes which discrepancies may be seen. If a system provides a weak consistency model, then the clients will require more careful programming than otherwise. Eventual consistency (q.v.) is the best-known weak consistency model.

Historical Background

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, replication research focused on systems that allowed replicas to diverge from one another in controlled ways. Epidemic or multi-master algorithms were introduced in the work of Demers et al. [4]. These researchers identified the importance of session properties [8], which ensure that clients see information that includes changes they could reasonably...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Alonso R, Barbará D, Garcia-Molina H. Data caching issues in an information retrieval system. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1990;15(3):359–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alonso R, Barbará D, Garcia-Molina H, Abad S. Quasi-copies: efficient data sharing for information retrieval systems. In: Advances in Database Technology, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Extending Database Technology; 1988. p. 443–68.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein PA, Fekete A, Guo H, Ramakrishnan R, Tamma P. Relaxed-currency serializability for middle-tier caching and replication. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2006. p. 599–610.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demers AJ, Greene DH, Hauser C, Irish W, Larson J, Shenker S, Sturgis HE, Swinehart DC, Terry DB. Epidemic algorithms for replicated database maintenance. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS 6th Symposium on the Principles of Distributed Computing; 1987. p. 1–12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray J, Helland P, O’Neil PE, Shasha D. The dangers of replication and a solution. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1996. p. 173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ladin R, Liskov B, Shrira L, Ghemawat S. Providing high availability using lazy replication. ACM Trans Comput Syst. 1992;10(4):360–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sheth AP, Rusinkiewicz M. Management of interdependent data: specifying dependency and consistency requirements. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on the Management of Replicated Data; 1990. p. 133–6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Terry DB, Demers AJ, Petersen K, Spreitzer M, Theimer M, Welch BB. Session guarantees for weakly consistent replicated data. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems; 1994. p. 140–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiederhold G, Qian X. Consistency control of replicated data in federated databases. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on the Management of Replicated Data; 1990. p. 130–2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Bettina Kemme
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceMcGill Univ.MontrealCanada