An Efficient Distributed Concurrency Control Algorithm using Two Phase Priority
Many concurrency control algorithms for distributed real-time database systems have been proposed. But there isn’t a representative concurrency control algorithm for replication environment. In this paper, we propose an efficient concurrency control algorithm for distributed real-time database systems in replication environment. The main ideas of this paper are promoting priority and trading of data. Promoting priority is that the priority of the transaction that enters into voting phase is elevated. Trading of data is that a holder in the voting phase can lend holding data to other transactions. The proposed algorithm does not cause priority inversion. Therefore it decreases the ratio of restarting transactions and guarantees a transaction to commit at its maximum. Also to reduce blocking times of transactions, it permits data of a transaction in the voting phase to lend to the others. It is shown through the performance evaluation that the proposed algorithm outperforms the existing algorithms such as DO2PL_PA and MIRROR.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.C. Mohan, B. Lindsay and R. Obermarck, “Transaction Management in the R* Distributed Database Management System”, ACM TODS, 11(4), 1986.Google Scholar
- 4.Haritsa, J..R. and Carey, M.J.; Livny, M. “Dynamic real-time optimistic concurrency control,” Real-Time Systems Symposium, Proceedings., 11th, 1990, Page(s): 94–103, 1990.Google Scholar
- 5.Michael J. Carey. and Miron Livny. “Distributed Concurrency Control Performance: A Study of Algorithm, Distribution, and Replication,” Proceedings of the 14th VLDB Conference, Los Angels, California Page(s): 13–25, 1988.Google Scholar
- 6.Son, S., “Advances In Real-Time Systems,” Prentice Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
- 7.Thomasian, A. “Distributed optimistic concurrency control methods for highperformance transaction processing,” Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Volume: 101, Jan.-Feb. 1998.Google Scholar
- 8.Xiong, M., Ramamritham, K., Haritsa, J., and Stankovic, J., “MIRROR: A State-Conscious Concurrency Control Protocol in Replicated Real-time Database,” Technical Report 98-36, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1998.Google Scholar
- 9.E. Levy, H. Korth and A. Silberschatz, “An optimistic commit protocol for distributed transaction management”, Proc. of ACM SIGMOD Conf., May 1991.Google Scholar
- 10.Anderson, T., Breitbart, Y., Korth, H. and Wool, A., “Replication, Consistency, and Practicality: Are These Mutually Exclusive” Proceedings of the ACMSIGMOD 1998 International Conference on Management of Data, Seattle, WA., Page(s) 484–495, 1998.Google Scholar
- 11.Agrawal, R., Carey, M., and McVoy, L., “The Performance of Alternative Strategies for Dealing With Deadlocks in Database Management Systems”, IEEE TOSE, Dec 1987.Google Scholar
- 12.Ciciani, B., Dias, D.M., Yu, P.S., “Analysis of Replication in Distributed Database Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 2,No.2, June 1990.Google Scholar
- 13.Gray, J., “Notes On Database Operating Systems,” in Operating Systems: An Advanced Course, R. Bayer, R. Graham, and G. Seegmuller, eds., Springer-verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
- 15.Wu, K.L., Yu, P.S. and Pu, C., “Divergence Control for Epsilon-Serializability,” In Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Data Engineering, Phoenix, February 1992.Google Scholar