Advertisement

Towards Effect Preservation of Updates with Loops

  • Steffen Jurk
  • Mira Balaban
Chapter
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 124)

Abstract

Todays technologies are capable to assist database developers in designing complex actions (e.g. stored procedures, active database rules). However, automatic generation and extention of given actions holds a danger — The original intention of actions might get canceled or even reversed, e.g. by some appended repairing action enforcing an integrity constraint. This problem might cause non-desired situations where an action commits although one of the intended database modifications was not applied.

In this paper, we deal with the characterization and preservation of effects (intentions) of database actions. As an extention of our current approach for effect preservation, we present a method for handling updates including non-nested loops. A transformation process is proposed that modifies a given action S to S′,such that S′ does preserve the effects. In order to reduce additional run-time overhead of S′,most of the computation is shifted to compile-time.

Keywords

Intention/Effects of Database Updates Contradictory Updates Code Transformation Transaction Design 

References

  1. [1]
    E. Baralis and J. Widom. An algebraic approach to static analysis of active database rules. In ACM Transactions on Database Systems, volume 25(3), pages 269–332, September 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Ceri, P.Fraternali, S. Paraboschia, and L. Tanca. Automatic gerneration of production rules for integrity maintenance. In ACM Transactions on Database Systems, volume 19(3), pages 367–422, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    E.W. Dijkstra and C.S. Scholten. Predicate calculus and program semantics. Springer-Verlag, Texts and Monographs in Computer Science, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Balaban, S. Jurk. Effect Preservation As A Means For Achieving Update Consistency. In 5th International Conf. on Flexible Query Answering Systems,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002 (to appear).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Balaban, S. Jurk. Intentions of Operations — Characterization and Preservation. In 2nd International Workshop on Evolution and Change in Data Management,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002 (to appear).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    F. Bry. Intensional updates: Abduction via deduction. In Proc. 7th Conf. on Logi Programming, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Greg Nelson. A generalization of dijkstras calculus. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 11: 517–561, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Fraternali and S. Paraboschi and L. Tanca. Automatic Rule Generation for Constraints Enforcement in Active Databases. Springer WICS, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Joan Antoni Pastor. Extending the synthesis of update transaction programs to handle existential rules in deductive databases. In Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Databases, pages 189–218, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Joan Antoni Pastor-Collado and Antoni Olive. Supporting transaction design in conceptual modelling of information systems. In Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pages 40–53, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Plexousakis and J. Mylopoulos. Accommodating integrity constraints during database design. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1057, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    K.D. Schewe. Consistency enforcement in entity-relationship and object-oriented models. Data and Knowledge Eng., 28 (1): 121–140, 1998.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    K.D. Schewe and B. Thalheim. Towards a theory of consistency enforcement. Acta Informatics, 36: 97–141, 1999.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    S.Y. Lee, T.W. Ling. Further Improvement on Integrity Constraint Checking for Stratisfiable Deductive Databases. In Proc. 22th Conf. on VLDB, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Widom and S. Ceri. Deriving production rules for constraint maintenance. In Proc. 16th Conf. on VLDB, pages 566–577, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Widom and S. Ceri. Active Database Systems. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Jurk
    • 1
  • Mira Balaban
    • 2
  1. 1.Brandenburg Technical University at CottbusCottbusGermany
  2. 2.Ben-Gurion UniversityBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations