Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semantic Atomicity

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Database Systems

  • 13 Accesses

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 4,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 6,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Recommended Reading

  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. Barga R, Lomet D. Phoenix project: fault-tolerant applications. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 2002;31(2):94–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Breitbart Y, Garcia-Molina H, Silberscahtz A. Overview of multidatabase transaction management. VLDB J. 1992;1(2):181–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chrysanthis PK, Ramamritham K. Synthesis of extended transaction models using acta. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1994;19(3):450–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Garcia-Molina H. Using semantic knowledge for transaction processing in a distributed database. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1983;8(2):186–213.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Korth HF, Kim W, Bancilhon F. On long duration CAD transactions. Inf Sci. 1988;46(1):73–107.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moss JEB. Nested transactions – an approach to reliable distributed computing. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

    Greg Speegle

Authors
  1. Greg Speegle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Greg Speegle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Institute of Technology College of Computing, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Ling Liu

  2. University of Waterloo School of Computer Science, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    M. Tamer Özsu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Speegle, G. (2018). Semantic Atomicity. In: Liu, L., Özsu, M.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_720

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation