Concurrency control theory for deferred materialized views
We consider concurrency control problems that arise in the presence of materialized views. Consider a database system supporting materialized views to speed up queries. For a range of important applications (e.g. banking, billing, network management), transactions that access materialized views would like to get some consistency guarantees—if a transaction reads a base relation after an update, and then reads a materialized view derived from the base relation, it expects to see the effect of the base update on the materialized view. If a transaction reads two views, it expects that the two views reflect a single consistent database state.
Such guarantees are not easy to obtain, as materialized views become inconsistent upon updates to base relations. Immediate maintenance reestablishes consistency within the transaction that updates the base relation, but this consistency comes at the cost of delaying update transactions. Deferred maintenance has been proposed to avoid penalizing update transactions by shifting maintenance into a different transaction (for example, into the transaction that reads the view). However, doing so causes a materialized view to become temporarily inconsistent with its definition. Consequently, transactions that read multiple materialized views, or that read a materialized view and also read and/or write base relations may execute in a non-serializable manner even when they are running under a strict two phase locking (2PL) protocol.
We formalize the concurrency control problem in systems supporting materialized views. We develop a serializability theory based upon conflicts and serialization graphs in the presence of materialized views. Concurrency control algorithms based on this theory are being developed in the SWORD/Ode database system.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.P. A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
- 2.J. A. Blakeley, P. Larson, and F. W. Tompa. Efficiently Updating Materialized Views. In C. Zaniolo, editor, Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1986 International Conference, pages 61–71, Washington, D.C., May 1986.Google Scholar
- 3.M. Carey and D. Schneider, editors. Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1995 International Conference, San Jose, CA, May 1995.Google Scholar
- 4.S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving production rules for incremental view maintenance. In G. M. Lohman, A. Sernadas, and R. Camps, editors, Proceedings of the Seventeenth VLDB Conference, pages 108–119, Barcelona, Spain, September 1991.Google Scholar
- 5.L. Colby, T. Griffin, L. Libkin, I. S. Mumick, and H. Trickey. Algorithms for deferred view maintenance. In H. V. Jagadish and I. S. Mumick, editors, Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1996 International Conference, Montreal, Canada, June 1996.Google Scholar
- 6.L. Colby, A. Kawaguchi, D. Lieuwen, I. S. Mumick, and K. A. Ross. Implementing materialized views. Unpublished Manuscript, 1996.Google Scholar
- 7.T. Griffin and L. Libkin. Incremental maintenance of views with duplicates. In Carey and Schneider , pages 328–339.Google Scholar
- 8.A. Gupta, H. V. Jagadish, and I. S. Mumick. Data integration using self-maintainable views. In Proceedings of the Fifth EDBT Conference, Avignon, France, March 1996.Google Scholar
- 9.A. Gupta and I. S. Mumick. Maintenance of Materialized Views: Problems, Techniques, and Applications. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, Special Issue on Materialized Views and Data Warehousing, 18(2):3–19, June 1995.Google Scholar
- 10.A. Gupta, I. S. Mumick, and V. S. Subrahmanian. Maintaining views incrementally. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1993 International Conference, Washington, DC, May 1993.Google Scholar
- 11.E. N. Hanson. A performance analysis of view materialization strategies. In U. Dayal and I. Traiger, editors, Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1987 International Conference, pages 440–453, San Francisco, CA, May 1987.Google Scholar
- 12.H. V. Jagadish, I. S. Mumick, and A. Silberschatz. View maintenance issues in the chronicle data model. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth PODS Symposium, pages 113–124, San Jose, CA, May 1995.Google Scholar
- 13.A. Kawaguchi, D. Lieuwen, I. S. Mumick, D. Quass, and K. A. Ross. Concurrency control theory for deferred materialized views. Technical Memorandum, AT&T and Bell Laboratories, 1996.Google Scholar
- 14.A. Kawaguchi, D. Lieuwen, I. S. Mumick, D. Quass, and K. A. Ross. Implementing concurrency control for deferred view maintenance. Unpublished manuscript, 1996.Google Scholar
- 15.I. S. Mumick. The Rejuvenation of Materialized Views. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information Systems and Management of Data (CISMOD), Bombay, India, November 1995.Google Scholar
- 16.X. Qian and G. Wiederhold. Incremental recomputation of active relational expressions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 3(3):337–341, 1991.Google Scholar
- 17.N. Roussopoulos and H. Kang. Principles and techniques in the design of ADMS±. IEEE Computer, pages 19–25, December 1986.Google Scholar
- 18.A. Segev and W. Fang. Currency-based updates to distributed materialized views. In Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 512–520, Los Angeles, CA, February 1990.Google Scholar
- 20.Y. Zhuge, H. Garcia-Molina, J. Hammer, and J. Widom. View maintenance in a warehousing environment. In Carey and Schneider , pages 316–327.Google Scholar