Checking Integrity Constraints in Multidatabase Systems with Nested Transactions

  • Anne Doucet
  • Stephane Gançarski
  • Claudia Lóon
  • Marta Rukoz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2172)

Abstract

This paper proposes various strategies for the checking of integrity constraints in multidatabase systems which support nested transactions. The solution presented in [8] for centralized environments is extended. The principle of this solution consists of designating a subtransaction which controls the checking of each integrity constraint. This sub-transaction is the smallest common ancestor (within the nested transaction tree) of all the sub-transactions which might violate the constraint. In the case of a multidatabase, it is necessary to take into account the constraint structure and the localization of the sub-transactions, to choose the site where the checking should be performed in order to minimize data transfers through the network. For this purpose, different checking strategies are presented depending on the type of the constraint to be checked.

Keywords

Integrity constraints Nested transactions Multidatabase systems Consistency checking Distributed transactions 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    V. Benzaken and A. Doucet. Thémis: A Database Programming Language Handling Integrity Constraints. The VLDB Journal, 4(3):493–517, July 1995. 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Besancenot, M. Cart, J. Ferrié, R. Gerraoui, P. Pucheral, and B. Traverson. Les systémes transactionnnels. Hermes, Paris, 1997. 317Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. T. Blaustein. Enforcing Database Assertions. PhDt hesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1981. 317Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Boertjes, P. W. P. J. Grefen, J. Vonk, and P. M. G. Apers. An Architecture for Nested Transactions Support on Standard Database Systems. In G. Quirchmayr, E. Schweighofer, and T. J. M. Bench-Capon, editors, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA’98, volume 1460 of LNCS, pages 448–459, Vienna (Austria), August 1998. Springer-Verlag. 317, 318Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Conrad, M. Höding, S. Janssen, G. Saake, I. Schmitt, and C. Türker. Integrity Constraints in Federated Database Design. Technical Report 2, Fakultät fur Informatik, Universität Magdeburg, April 1996. 316Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Defude and H. Martin. Integrity checking for Nested Transactions. In R. Wagner and H. Thoma, editors, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA’96, pages 147–152, Zurich (Switzerland), September 1996. IEEE-CS Press. 317Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Doucet, S. Gançarski, C. León, and M. Rukoz. Nested Transactions with Integrity Constraints. In G. Saake, K. Schwarz, and C. Türker, editors, TDD’99, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, September 27-30, 1999, Selected Papers, volume 1773 of LNCS, pages 130–149, Berlin, 2000. Springer-Verlag. 316, 317, 318, 326Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. W. P. J. Grefen and P. M. G. Apers. Integrity Control in Relational Database Systems-An Overview. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 10:187–223, 1993. 316, 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. W. P. J. Grefen and J. Widom. Protocols for Integrity Constraint Checking in Federated Databases. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 5(4):327–355, October 1997. 326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Grufman, F. Samson, S. M. Embury, P. M. D. Gray, and T. Risch. Distributing Semantic Constraints Between Heterogeneous Databases. In Alex Gray and PerÅke Larson, editors, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 1997, April 7-11, pages 33–42, Birmingham U. K., April 1997. IEEE Computer Society. 316, 324, 326Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Gupta and J. Widom. Local Verification of Global Integrity Constraints in Distributed Databases. In P. Buneman and S. Jajodia, editors, Proc. of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, volume 22 of ACM SIGMOD Record, pages 49–58, Washington, D. C.(USA), May 1993. ACM Press. 316, 324, 326Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. E. B. Moss. Nested Transactions: An Approach to Reliable Distributed Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985. 317, 319Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Rukoz, C. León, and M. Rívas. SIMA: A Java Tool for Constructing Image Processing Applications on a Heterogeneous Network. to appear in Parallel and Distributed Computing Practices. Special Issue on Distributed Object Systems. 317, 318, 326Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. P. Sheth and J. A. Larson. Federated Database Systems for Managing Distributed, Heterogeneous, and Autonomous Databases. ACM Computing Surveys, 22(3):183–236, September 1990. 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. P. Sheth, M. Rusinkiewicz, and G. Karabatis. Using Polytransactions to Manage Interdependent Data. In A. K. Elmagarmid, editor, Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, pages 555–581. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1992. 317Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Weikum, A. Deacon, W. Schaad, and H.-J. Schek. Open Nested Transaction in Federated Database Systems. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 16(2):4–7, June 1993. 319Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Doucet
    • 1
  • Stephane Gançarski
    • 1
  • Claudia Lóon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marta Rukoz
    • 2
  1. 1.LIP6, Case 169, Université P&M CurieParisFrance
  2. 2.CCPD, U.C.V. Apdo.CaracasVenezuela

Personalised recommendations