Advertisement

Concurrent Checking of Global Cross-Database Integrity Constraints

  • Stefan Böttcher
Chapter
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 124)

Abstract

Global integrity of data across the boundaries of single database systems is an important requirement in multi-database systems, but cannot be achieved without transaction synchronization across the boundaries of database systems. The problem is to guarantee that global transactions leave these multiple databases in a globally consistent state and to avoid that global integrity checks unnecessarily block other application transactions. We present a solution that offers both, unlimited concurrency between global integrity constraint checks and local transactions, and increased concurrency of global integrity checks and global application transactions, thereby contributing to a higher performance of global integrity checks. We show that the key idea of our approach, i.e., to lock the integrity constraint itself, leads to a correct and efficiently implementable lock protocol for concurrent integrity constraint checks crossing database system boundaries. Since our approach blocks significantly less resources for global integrity checking than the conventional approach, we consider it to be an important contribution to guarantee global cross-database integrity.

Key words

global integrity of data transaction synchronization concurrent integrity checking. 

References

  1. [1]
    A. Adya, B. Liskov, P. O’Neil: Generalized Isolation Level Definitions. ICDE, San Diego, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    V. Atluri, E. Bertino, S. Jajodia: A Theoretical Formulation for Degrees of Isolation in Databases, Information and Software Technology Vol.39 No.1, Elsevier Science, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R.K. Batra, D. Georgakopoulos, N. Rusinkiewicz: A Decentralized Deadlock-Free Concurrency Control Method for Multidatabase Transactions. Proc. 12`h Int. Conf. on Distributed Systems, Yokohama, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Benedikt, T. Griffin, L. Libkin: Verifiable Properties of Database Transactions. PoDS 1996.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    A.J. Bernstein, P.M. Lewis, S. Lu: Semantic Conditions for Correctness at Different Isolation Levels. ICDE, San Diego, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Bernstein, N. Goodman: Concurrency Control in Distributed Database Systems, Computing Surveys, 13 (2), 1981.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, N. Goodman: Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Böttcher: Improving the Concurrency of Integrity Checks and Write Operations. ICDT 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Y. Breitbart, H. Garcia-Molina, A. Silberschatz: Overview of Multidatabase Transaction Management. VLDB Journal, 1 (2), 1992.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Y. Breitbart, D. Georgakopoulos, M. Rusinkiewicz, A. Silberschatz: On Rigorous Transaction Scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering Vol. 17 No. 9, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Deacon, H.-J. Schek, G. Weikum: Semantics-Based Multilevel Transaction Management in Federated Systems. ICDE 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    W. Du, A.K. Elmagarmid: Quasi Serializability: a Correctness Criterion for Global Concurrency Control in InterBase, VLDB, Amsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. Georgakopoulos, M. Rusinkiewicz, A.P. Sheth: Using Tickets to Enforce the Serializability of Multidatabase Transactions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 6 (1), 1994.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Gray, A. Reuter: Transaction Processing, Concepts and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Gupta, Y. Sagiv, J.D. Ullman, J. Widom: Constraint Checking with Partial Information. PODS 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    A. Helal, Y. Kim, Marion Nodine, Ahmed K. Elmagarmid, Abdelsalam Heddaya: Transaction Optimization Techniques. In: Sushil Jajodia, Larry Kerschberg (Eds.): Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures. Kluwer 1997.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. Hsu, T. Imielinski: Integrity checking for multiple updates. ACM SIGMOD, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    N.B. Idris, W.A. Gray, R.F. Churchhouse: Providing Dynamic Security Control in a Federated Database. VLDB 1994.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. Kawaguchi, D.F. Lieuwen, Inderpal Singh Mumick, Dalian Quass, Kenneth A. Ross: Concurrency Control Theory for Deferred Materialized Views. ICDT 1997.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Y.-S. Kim, A. Helal, A.K. Elmagarmid. Transaction Optimization. International Workshop on Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures, Goa, India, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. Klingemann, T. Tesch, J. Waesch: Semantics-Based Transaction Management for Cooperative Applications. International Workshop on Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures, Goa, India, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    F. Llirbat, E. Simon, D. Tombroff: Using Versions in Update Transactions: Application to Integrity Checking. VLDB 1997, Athens.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. Mehrotra, R. Rastogi, H.F. Korth, A. Silberschatz: The Concurrency Control Problem in Multidatabases: Characteristics and Solutions. ACM-SIGMOD Conf., San Diego, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    S. Mehrotra, R. Rastogi, H.F. Korth, A. Silberschatz: Ensuring Consistency in Multidatabases by Preserving Two-Level Serializability, ACM ToDS, 23, 2, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    J.M. Nicolas: Logic for Improving Integrity Checking in Relational Data Bases, Acta Informatica 18 (3), 1982.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    M.T. Özsu, P. Valduriez: Principles of Distributed Database Systems. 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, 1999.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Y. Raz: The Principle of Commit Ordering or Guaranteeing Serializability in a Heterogeneous Environment of Multiple Autonomous Resource Managers Using Atomic Commitment. VLDB, Vancouver, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    R. Schenkel, G. Weikum: Taming the Tiger: How to Cope with Real Database Product in Transactional Federations for Internet Applications. GI-Workshop Internet-Datenbanken 2000.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    R. Schenkel, G. Weikum, N. Weißenberg, X. Wu: Federated Transaction Management With Snapshot Isolation, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Foundations of Models and Language for Data and Objects — Transactions and Database Dynamics, Schloß Dagstuhl, Germany, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    T. Sheard, D. Stemple: Automatic Verification of Database Transaction Safety. ACM ToDS 14 (3), 1989.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    E. Simon, P.Valduriez: Efficient Algorithms for Integrity Control in a Database Machine. NBS Conf., Gaithersburg, 1984.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    E. Simon, P.Valduriez: Integrity Control in Distributed Database Systems. In Proc. 19`h Hawaii Conf. On System Sciences, 1986.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    E. Simon, P.Valduriez: Design and Analysis of a Relational Integrity Subsystem. MCC Technical Report DB-015–87, 1987.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    P.J. Stuckey, S. Sudarshan: Compiling Query Constraints. PODS 1994.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    W.E. Weihl: Local Atomicity Properties: Modular Concurrency Control for Data Types. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 11 (2), 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Böttcher
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich 17 (Mathematik-Informatik)University of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations