Integrity constraints in multiversion databases

  • Anne Doucet
  • Stéphane Gançarski
  • Geneviève Jomier
  • Sophie Monties
Technical Papers Integrity Issues
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1094)


This paper analyses the extension of integrity constraint mechanisms in order to maintain consistency in multiversion databases is studied. Unlike monoversion databases, a multiversion database represents several states of the modeled universe. Thus, both the notion of consistency and the means to maintain it have to be extended. To this aim, we consider new integrity constraints induced by versioning. Constraints are characterized according to several criteria, and a general framework for optimizing their checking in the context of ACID transactions is given. The database versions model [CJ90] is used as it offers a sound basis for the definition of consistency.


database versions consistency integrity constraints 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AHLZ95]
    E. Andonoff, G. Hubert, A. Le Parc and G. Zurfluh. Modeling inheritance, composition and relationship links between objects, object versions and class versions. Proc. CAISE'95, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [AJ89]
    R. Agrawal and H. V. Jagadish. On correctly configuring versioned objects. Proc. VLDB, pages 367–374, Amsterdam, August 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [Atw86]
    T.M. Atwood. An object-oriented DBMS for design support applications. Proc. COMPINT, pages 299–307, Montréal, September 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [BG80]
    D. Bobrow and I. Goldstein. Representing design alternatives. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behavior. — Amsterdam (Netherlands), July 1980.Google Scholar
  5. [BD95]
    V. Benzaken and A. Doucet. Thémis: A database Programming Language Handling Integrity Constraints In: VLDB Journal-Vol. 4-Nr. 3-1995.Google Scholar
  6. [BMCJ93]
    C.M. Bauzer-Medeiros, W. Cellary and G. Jomier. Maintaining Integrity Constraints across Versions in a Database. Proc. 8th Brazilian Database Conference, Campina Grande, Brazil, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [CJ90]
    W. Cellary and G. Jomier. Consistency of versions in object-oriented databases. Proc. 16th VLDB, Brisbane (Australia), 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [CJK91]
    W. Cellary, G. Jomier, and T. Koszlajda. Formal model of an object-oriented database with versioned objects and schema. Proc. DEXA '91. Google Scholar
  9. [EC94]
    J. Estublier and R. Casallas. The Adele Configuration Manager. — In: Configuration Management, ed. by W. Tichy, Wiley and son, in Software Trend Serie, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [GR93]
    J. Gray and A. Reuter. Transaction Processing: concepts and techniques. Morgan and Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 1-55860-190-2 — 1070 pages, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [GA93]
    P. Grefen and P. Apers. Integrity control in relational database systems — an overview. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 10(2):187–223, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [GJZ95]
    S. Gançarski, G. Jomier and M. Zamfiroïu. A Framework for the Manipulation of a Multiversion Database In: DEXA '95 International Conference, Workshop Proc., ISBN 3-901653-00-7, pp. 247–256. London (U.K.), 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [KA91]
    J. Kimball and L. Aaron (L.). Epochs, configuration schema, and version cursors in the KBSA framework CCM model. In: Proc. Third International Wshp. on Softw. Configuration Mgt., pp. 33–42, Trondheim (Norway), 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [Kat90]
    R. H. Katz. Toward a unified framework for version modeling in engineering databases. ACM Computing Surveys, 22(4):375–408, December 1990.Google Scholar
  15. [KBG89]
    W. Kim, E. Bertino, and J.F. Garza. Composite objects revisited. ACM SIGMOD Record, 18(2):337–347, June 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [KS92]
    W. Käfer and H. Schöning. Mapping a version model to a complex-object data model. Proc. IEEE Data Engineering, Tempe (Arizona), 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [O2T95]
    02Technology. The O 2 user's manual, version 4.6. Technical report, Versailles, France, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [Reich.89]
    Reichenberger (C.). Orthogonal version management. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Software Configuration Management, pp. 137–140, Princeton, New Jersey (USA), 1989.Google Scholar
  19. [Sarda90]
    N. Sarda. Extensions to SQL for historical databases. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and DataEngineering, vol. 2, Nr. 2, pp. 220–230, June 1990.Google Scholar
  20. [TCG+93]
    A.U. Tansel, J. Clifford, S. Gadia, S. Jajodia, A. Segev and R. Snodgrass. Temporal Databases: Theory, Design, and Implementation. — Benjamin/Cummings, Database Systems and Applications, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. [TOC93]
    G. Talens, C. Oussalah, and M.F. Colinas. Versions of simple and composite objects. In Proc. 19th VLDB, Dublin, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. [Zdo86]
    S. Zdonik. Version management in an object-oriented database. Proc. International Workshop on Advanced Programming Environments, pages 138–200, Trondheim (Norway), 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Doucet
    • 1
  • Stéphane Gançarski
    • 2
  • Geneviève Jomier
    • 2
  • Sophie Monties
    • 1
  1. 1.LAFORIA-Université P. & M. CurieParis cedex 5France
  2. 2.LAMSADE-Université Paris DauphineParis cedex 16France

Personalised recommendations