A non-restrictive concurrency control for object oriented databases

  • D. Agrawal
  • A. El Abbadi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 580)


We propose an algorithm for executing transactions in object oriented databases. The object oriented database model generalizes the classical model of database concurrency control by permitting accesses to class and instance objects, by permitting arbitrary operations on objects as opposed to traditional read and write operations, and by allowing for the nested execution of transactions on objects. In this paper, we first develop a uniform methodology for treating both classes and instances. We then develop a two phase locking protocol with a new relationship between locks called ordered sharing for an object oriented database. Ordered sharing does not restrict the execution of conflicting operations. Finally, we extend the protocol to allow for nesting. The resulting protocol permits more concurrency that other known locking-based protocols.


Database System Concurrency Control Instance Object Atomic Operation Conflict Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AD85]
    R. Agrawal and D. J. Dewitt. Integrated concurrency control and recovery mechanisms: Design and performance evaluation. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 10(4):529–564, December 1985.Google Scholar
  2. [AE90]
    D. Agrawal and A. El Abbadi. Locks with Constrained Sharing. In Proceedings of the Ninth A CM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 85–93, April 1990. An expanded version of this paper appears as technical report TRCS 90-14, Department of Computer Science, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  3. [AEL91]
    D. Agrawal, A. El Abbadi, and A. E. Lang. Performance Characteristics of Protocols with Ordered Shared Locks. In Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, April 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [BBB+88]
    [BBB+88] F. Bacilhon, G. Barbedette, V. Benzaken, C. Delobel, S. Gamerman, C. Lécluse, P. Pfeffer, P. Richard, and F. Velez. The Design and Implementation of O2 an Object-Oriented Database System. In Advances in Object-Oriented Database Systems, Springer-Verlag, September 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [BHG87]
    P. A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. [BKKK87]
    J. Banerjee, W. Kim, H. J. Kim, and H. F. Korth. Semantics and Implementation of Schema Evolution in Object-Oriented Databases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data, May 87.Google Scholar
  7. [BR87]
    B. Badrinath and K. Ramamritham. Semantics Based Concurrency Control: Beyond Commutativity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 304–311, February 1987. To appear in the ACM Transactions on Database Systems.Google Scholar
  8. [BSW79]
    P. A. Bernstein, D. W. Shipman, and W. S. Wong. Formal aspects of serializability in database concurrency control. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 5(5):203–216, May 1979.Google Scholar
  9. [CF90]
    M. Cart and J. Ferrié. Integrating Concurrency Control into an Object-Oriented Database System. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Extending Data Base Technology, Springer-Verlag, LNCS 416, pages 363–376, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [EGLT76]
    K. P. Eswaran, J. N. Gray, R. A. Lorie, and I. L. Traiger. The Notion of Consistency and Predicate Locks in Database System. Communications of the ACM, 19(11):624–633, November 1976.Google Scholar
  11. [GK88]
    J. F. Garza and W. Kim. Transaction Management in an Object-oriented Data Model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data, pages 37–55, June 88.Google Scholar
  12. [Gra78]
    J. N. Gray. Notes on database systems. In R. Bayer, R. M. Graham, and G. Seegmuller, editors, Operating Systems: An Advanced Course, volume 60 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 393–481. Springer-Verlag, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. [HH91]
    T. Hadzilacos and V. Hadzilacos. Transaction Synchronization in Object Bases. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 43(1):2–24, August 1991. Special issue on the 7th Annual ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems, March 21–23, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [HR83]
    T. Härder and A. Reuter. Principles of Transaction-Oriented Database Recovery. ACM Computing Surveys, 15(4):287–317, December 1983.Google Scholar
  15. [Kor83]
    H. F. Korth. Locking primitives in a database system. Journal of the ACM, 30(1):55–79, January 1983.Google Scholar
  16. [KR81]
    H. T. Kung and J. T. Robinson. On Optimistic Methods for Concurrency Control. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 6(2):213–226, June 1981.Google Scholar
  17. [LRV88]
    C. Lécluse, P. Richard, and F. Velez. O2, an Object-Oriented Data Model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data, pages 424–433, June 88.Google Scholar
  18. [Mos85]
    J. E. B. Moss. Nested Transactions: An Approach to Reliable Distributed Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. [Pap79]
    C. H. Papadimitriou. The Serializability of Concurrent Database Updates. Journal of the ACM, 26(4):631–653, October 1979.Google Scholar
  20. [RGN90]
    T. C. Rakow, J. Gu, and E. J. Neuhold. Serializability in Object-Oriented Database Systems. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 112–120, April 1990.Google Scholar
  21. [SS84]
    P. M. Schwarz and A. Z. Spector. Synchronizing shared abstract types. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(3):223–250, August 1984.Google Scholar
  22. [Ver78]
    J. S. M. Verhofstad. Recovery Techniques for Database Systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 10(2):167–196, 1978.Google Scholar
  23. [Wei89a]
    W. E. Weihl. Local Atomicity Properties: Modular Concurrency Control for Abstract Data Types. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 11(2):249–283, April 1989.Google Scholar
  24. [Wei89b]
    W. E. Weihl. The Impact of Recovery on Concurrency Control. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 259–269, March 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Agrawal
    • 1
  • A. El Abbadi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations