Advertisement

Timestamp ordering concurrency control mechanisms for transactions of various length

  • Xingguo Zhong
  • Yahiko Kambayashi
Data Sharing
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 367)

Abstract

Timestamp ordering concurrency control mechanisms were considered to be quite suitable for distributed database systems, since transactions to be rolled badk can be determined locally at each site. Experiments, however, have shown that timestamp ordering mechanisms do not seem to be efficient and has a starvation problem for long transactions. In this paper, to improve efficiency of timestamp ordering mechanisms we propose to use a termination timestamp which is defined by a predicted commitment time or a predicted last read/write request time of a transaction. Besides other advantages the mechanism simplifies operations required for abort selection. The abort selection method introduced by the authors tries to improve the efficienty by selecting a proper transaction to be rolled back when conflict occurs. Comparison of several timestamp ordering methods obtained by combining these techniques is also given.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [BER80]
    Bernstein, P.A. and Goodman, N.: Timestamp-Based Algorithms for Concurrency Control in Distributed Database Systems. Proceedings of VLDB, (Oct. 1980), 285–300.Google Scholar
  2. [CAR84]
    Carey, M. and Stonebraker, M.: The Performance of Concurrency Control Algorithms for Database Management Systems. Proceedings of VLDB, (Aug. 1984), 107–118.Google Scholar
  3. [CAR86]
    Carey, M. J. et al.: The Performance of Multiversion Concurrency Control Algorithms, ACM Trans. Computer Syst. Vol. 4, No. 4, (Nov. 1986), 338–378.Google Scholar
  4. [ESW76]
    Eswaran, K.P. et al.: The Notions of Consistency and Predicate Lock in a Database System, Comm. ACM Vol. 10, No. 19, (Nov. 1976), 624–633.Google Scholar
  5. [FUS81]
    Fussell,D., et al.: Deadlock Removal Using Partial Rollback in Database Systems, Proceedings of Management of Data (ACM SIGMOD), (1981), 65–73.Google Scholar
  6. [GRA78]
    Gray,J.: Notes on Data Base Operating Systems, IBM Report RJ2188, (1978).Google Scholar
  7. [KAM84]
    Kambayashi, Y. and Kondo, S.: Global Concurrency Control Mechanisms for a Local Network Consisting of Systems without Concurrency Control Mechanisms, Proceedings of AFIPS National Computer Conference, Vol.53, (July 1984), 31–39.Google Scholar
  8. [KAM87]
    Kambayashi, Y. and Zhong, X.,: Controllable Timestamp Ordering and Oriental Timestamp Ordering Concurrency Control Mechanisms, Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society's International Computer Software & Applications Conference (COMPSAC), (1987), 554–560.Google Scholar
  9. [KAM88]
    Kambayashi, Y.,: Integration of Different Concurrency Control Mechanisms in Heterogeneous Distributed Databases, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Interoperable Information Systems (ISIIS '88), ORM Publishing Co., (1988).Google Scholar
  10. [LIN83]
    Lin,W. and Nolte,J.: Basic Timestamp, Multiple Version Timestamp and Towphase Locking, Proceedings of VLDB, (1983), 109–115.Google Scholar
  11. [LIT88]
    Litwin, W. and Tirri, H.,: Flexible Concurrency Conrotol Using Value Dates, IEEE Distributed Processing Technical Committee News Letter, Vol.10, No.2, (Nov. 1988), 42–49.Google Scholar
  12. [ROS78]
    Rosenkrants, D.J., et al.: System Level Concurrency Control for Distributed Database Systems, ACM Trans. on Database Syst. Vol.3, No.2, (June 1978), 178–198.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xingguo Zhong
    • 1
  • Yahiko Kambayashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Communication EngineeringKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations