Encyclopedia of Database Systems

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

Supporting Transaction Time Databases

  • David Lomet
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_381

Synonyms

Multi-version database; Temporal database

Definition

The temporal concepts glossary maintained at http://www.cs.aau.dk/~csj/Glossary/ defines transaction time as: “The transaction time of a database fact is the time when the fact is current in the database and may be retrieved.” A transaction time database thus stores versions of database records or tuples, each of which has a start time and an end time, delimiting the time range during which they represent the current versions of database facts. As each version is the result of transactions, the times associated with the version are the times for the transaction starting the version (the start time) and for the transaction ending the version (the end time). These transaction times are required to agree with the serialization order of the transaction, so that the database can present a transaction consistent view of the facts being stored.

Historical Background

Postgres was the first database system that supported transaction...

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Stonebraker M. The design of the POSTGRES storage system. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 1987.p. 289–300.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guttman A. R-trees: a dynamic index structure for spatial searching. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1984, p. 47–57.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lomet DB, Salzberg B. Access methods for multiversion data. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1989. p. 315–24.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Easton M. Key-sequence data sets on inedible storage. IBM J Res Dev. 1986;30(3):230–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hobbs L, England K. Rdb: a comprehensive guide. Newton: Digital Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Tansel U, Clifford J, Gadia SK, Segev A, Snodgrass RT. Temporal databases: theory, design, and implementation. Benjamin/Cummings; 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torp K, Snodgrass RT, Jensen CS. Effective timestamping in databases. VLDB J. 2000;8(4):267–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clifford J, Dyreson C, Isakowitz T, Jensen CS, Snodgrass RT. On the semantics of “now” in databases. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1997;22(2):171–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lomet DB, Barga R, Mokbel M, Shegalov G, Wang R, Zhu Y. Transaction time support inside a database engine. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering; 2006. p. 35.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salzberg B, Tsotras VJ. A comparison of access methods for time-evolving data. ACM Comput Surv. 1999;31(2):158–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becker B, Gschwind S, Ohler T, Seeger B, Widmayer P. An asymptotically optimal multiversion B-tree. VLDB J. 1996;5(4):264–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lomet DB, Snodgrass RT, Jensen CS. Using the lock manager to choose timestamps. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Database Engineering and Applications; 2005. p. 357–68.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lomet DB, Salzberg B. Exploiting a history database for backup. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 1993.p. 380–90.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lomet DB, Vagena Z, Barga R. Recovery from “bad” user transactions. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2006. p. 337–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Richard T. Snodgrass
    • 1
  • Christian S. Jensen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Aalborg UniversityAalborg ØstDenmark