Encyclopedia of Database Systems

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

Semantic Atomicity

  • Greg Speegle
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_720

Synonyms

None

Definition

Let T be a transaction composed of subtransactions S0, S1, …Sn−1. Let C0, C1, …Cn−1 be a set of compensating transactions, such that Ci compensates for the corresponding Si. T is semantically atomic iff all Si have committed, or for all Si that have committed, Ci has also committed. A schedule (or history) ensures semantic atomicity if all transactions are semantically atomic. If T requires compensating transactions, then the resulting database is semantically equivalent to one in which T did not execute at all, but it is not guaranteed to be identical. Typically, two database states are equivalent if they both satisfy all of the database constraints.

Historical Background

Semantic atomicity is first defined in [6], with the use of countersteps to remove parts of a failed transaction executing in a distributed database environment, without rolling back the entire transaction. The “step” grew in complexity to a subtransaction with the introduction of sagas [7]....

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Ammann P, Jajodia S, Ray I. Ensuring atomicity of multilevel transactions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy; 1996. p. 74–84.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barga R, Lomet D. Phoenix project: fault-tolerant applications. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 2002;31(2):94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breitbart Y, Garcia-Molina H, Silberscahtz A. Overview of multidatabase transaction management. VLDB J. 1992;1(2):181–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breitbart Y, Deacon A, Schek H-J, Sheth A, Weikum G. Merging application-centric and data-centric approaches to support transaction-oriented multi-system workflows. SIGMOD Rec. 1993;22(3): 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chrysanthis PK, Ramamritham K. Synthesis of extended transaction models using acta. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1994;19(3):450–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garcia-Molina H. Using semantic knowledge for transaction processing in a distributed database. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1983;8(2):186–213.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcia-Molina H, Salem K. Sagas. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1987. p. 249–59.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korth HF, Speegle G. Formal aspects of concurrency control in long-duration transaction systems using the NT/PV model. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1994;19(3):492–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Korth HF, Kim W, Bancilhon F. On long duration CAD transactions. Inf Sci. 1988;46(1):73–107.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Korth HF, Levy E, Silberschatz A. A formal approach of recovery by compensating transactions. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 1990. p. 95–106.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levy E, Korth HF, Silberschatz A. An optimistic commit protocol for distributed transaction management. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1991. p. 88–97.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mohan C, Haderle D, Lindsay B, Pirahesh H, Schwarz P. ARIES: a transaction recovery method supporting fine-granularity locking and partial rollbacks using write-ahead logging. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1992;17(1):94–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moss JEB. Nested transactions – an approach to reliable distributed computing. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Puustjarvi J. Using advanced transaction and workflow models in composing web services. In: Advances in Computer Science and Technology – ACST 2007; 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soparkar N, Levy E, Korth HF, Silberschatz A. Adaptive commitment for distributed real-time transactions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management; 1994. p. 187–94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceBaylor UniversityWacoUSA