Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Database Systems pp 501–506Cite as

Correctness Criteria Beyond Serializability

  • Reference work entry

Synonyms

Concurrency control; Preserving database consistency

Definition

A transaction is a logical unit of work that includes one or more database access operations such as insertion, deletion, modification, and retrieval [8]. A schedule (or history) S of n transactions T 1,...,T n is an ordering of the transactions that satisfies the following two conditions: (i) the operations of T i (i = 1,...,n) in S must occur in the same order in which they appear in T i , and (ii) operations from T j (j ≠ i) may be interleaved with T i ’s operations in S. A schedule S is serial if for every two transactions T i and T j that appear in S, either all operations of T i appear before all operations of T j , or vice versa. Otherwise, the schedule is called nonserial or concurrent. Non-serial schedules of transactions may lead to concurrency problems such as lost update, dirty read, and unrepeatable read. For instance, the lost update problem occurs whenever two transactions, while attempting to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   2,500.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Recommended Reading

  1. Bernstein P.A. and Goodman N. Multiversion concurrency control – theory and algorithms. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 8(4):465–483, 1983.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernstein P.A., Hadzilacos V., and Goodman N. Concurrency control and recovery in database systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dayal U., Hsu M., and Ladin R. Business process coordination: state of the art, trends, and open issues. In Proc. 27th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 2001, pp. 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Du W. and Elmagarmid A.K. Quasi serializability: a correctness criterion for global concurrency control in Interbase. In Proc. 15th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 1989, pp. 347–355.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eswaran K.P., Gray J., Lorie R.A., and Traiger I.L. The notions of consistency and predicate locks in a database system. Commun. ACM, 19(11):624–633, 1976.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Garcia-Molina H. Using semantic knowledge for transaction processing in a distributed database. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 8(2):186–213, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gray J., Lorie R.A., Putzolu G.R., and Traiger I.L. Granularity of locks in a large shared data base. In Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Very Data Bases, 1975, pp. 428–451.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gray J. and Reuter A. Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Korth H.F. and Speegle G.D. Formal model of correctness without serializability. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, 1988, pp. 379–386.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mehrotra S., Rastogi R., Korth H.F., and Silberschatz A. Ensuring consistency in multidatabases by preserving two-level serializability. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 23(2):199–230, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Papadimitriou C.H. The serializability of concurrent database updates. J. ACM, 26(4):631–653, 1979.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Papadimitriou C.H. The Theory of Database Concurrency Control. Computer Science, Rockville, MD, 1986.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Ramamritham K. and Pu C. A formal characterization of epsilon serializability. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 7(6):997–1007, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sheth A., Leu Y., and Elmagarmid A. Maintaining Consistency of Interdependent Data in Multidatabase Systems. Tech. Rep. CSD-TR-91-016, Purdue University, http://www.cs.toronto.edu/georgem/ws/ws.ps, 1991.

  15. Yannakakis M. Serializability by locking. J. ACM, 31(2):227–244, 1984.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Mourad Ouzzani & Ahmed K. Elmagarmid

  2. The University of Michigan – Dearborn, Dearborn, MI, USA

    Brahim Medjahed

Authors
  1. Mourad Ouzzani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brahim Medjahed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed K. Elmagarmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, 266 Ferst Drive, 30332-0765, Atlanta, GA, USA

    LING LIU (Professor) (Professor)

  2. Database Research Group David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, N2L 3G1, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    M. TAMER ÖZSU (Professor and Director, University Research Chair) (Professor and Director, University Research Chair)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Ouzzani, M., Medjahed, B., Elmagarmid, A.K. (2009). Correctness Criteria Beyond Serializability. In: LIU, L., ÖZSU, M.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_722

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation