DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

TERM 2008-09

B. Tech II/IT II Semester

UNIT-VI PPT SLIDES

Text Books: (1) DBMS by Raghu Ramakrishnan

(2) DBMS by Sudarshan and Korth
 INDEX
UNIT-6 PPT SLIDES
S.NO Module as per Lecture PPT
Session planner No Slide NO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Transaction concept & State L1 L1- 1 to L1- 7
2. Implementation of atomicity and durability L2 L2- 1 to L2- 8
3. Serializability L3 L3- 1 to L3- 8
4. Recoverability L4 L4- 1 to L4- 8
5. Implementation of isolation L5 L5- 1 to L5- 6
6. Lock based protocols L6 L6- 1 to L6 -5
7. Lock based protocols L7 L7- 1 to L7- 10
8. Timestamp based protocols L8 L8- 1 to L8- 6
9. Validation based protocol L9 L9- 1 to L9- 9
 Transaction Concept
A transaction is a unit of program execution that accesses
and possibly updates various data items.
E.g. transaction to transfer $50 from account A to account
B:
1. read(A)
2. A := A 50
3. write(A)
4. read(B)
5. B := B + 50
6. write(B)
Two main issues to deal with:
Failures of various kinds, such as hardware failures
and system crashes
Concurrent execution of multiple transactions

Slide No.L1-1
 Example of Fund Transfer
Transaction to transfer $50 from account A to account B:
1. read(A)
2. A := A 50
3. write(A)
4. read(B)
5. B := B + 50
6. write(B)
Atomicity requirement
if the transaction fails after step 3 and before step 6, money will be
lost leading to an inconsistent database state
Failure could be due to software or hardware
the system should ensure that updates of a partially executed
transaction are not reflected in the database
Durability requirement once the user has been notified that the
transaction has completed (i.e., the transfer of the $50 has taken
place), the updates to the database by the transaction must persist
even if there are software or hardware failures.

Slide No.L1-2
 Example of Fund Transfer (Cont.)
Transaction to transfer $50 from account A to account B:
1. read(A)
2. A := A 50
3. write(A)
4. read(B)
5. B := B + 50
6. write(B)
Consistency requirement in above example:
the sum of A and B is unchanged by the execution of the
transaction
In general, consistency requirements include
Explicitly specified integrity constraints such as primary
keys and foreign keys
Implicit integrity constraints
e.g. sum of balances of all accounts, minus sum of
loan amounts must equal value of cash-in-hand
A transaction must see a consistent database.
During transaction execution the database may be temporarily
inconsistent.
When the transaction completes successfully the database must be
consistent
Erroneous transaction logic can lead to inconsistency

Slide No.L1-3
 Example of Fund Transfer (Cont.)
Isolation requirement if between steps 3 and 6, another
transaction T2 is allowed to access the partially updated database,
it will see an inconsistent database (the sum A + B will be less than
it should be).
T1 T2
1. read(A)
2. A := A 50
3. write(A)
read(A), read(B), print(A+B)
4. read(B)
5. B := B + 50
6. write(B
Isolation can be ensured trivially by running transactions serially
that is, one after the other.
However, executing multiple transactions concurrently has
significant benefits, as we will see later.

Slide No.L1-4
 ACID Properties
A transaction is a unit of program execution that accesses and possibly
updates various data items.To preserve the integrity of data the database
system must ensure:
Atomicity. Either all operations of the transaction are properly
reflected in the database or none are.
Consistency. Execution of a transaction in isolation preserves the
consistency of the database.
Isolation. Although multiple transactions may execute
concurrently, each transaction must be unaware of other
concurrently executing transactions. Intermediate transaction
results must be hidden from other concurrently executed
transactions.
That is, for every pair of transactions Ti and Tj, it appears to Ti
that either Tj, finished execution before Ti started, or Tj started
execution after Ti finished.
Durability. After a transaction completes successfully, the changes
it has made to the database persist, even if there are system failures.

Slide No.L1-5
 Transaction State
Active the initial state; the transaction stays in this state
while it is executing
Partially committed after the final statement has been
executed.
Failed -- after the discovery that normal execution can no
longer proceed.
Aborted after the transaction has been rolled back and the
database restored to its state prior to the start of the
transaction. Two options after it has been aborted:
restart the transaction
can be done only if no internal logical error
kill the transaction
Committed after successful completion.

Slide No.L1-6
Transaction State (Cont.)

Slide No.L1-7
 Implementation of Atomicity and Durability
The recovery-management component of a database system
implements the support for atomicity and durability.
E.g. the shadow-database scheme:
all updates are made on a shadow copy of the database
db_pointer is made to point to the updated shadow
copy after
the transaction reaches partial commit and
all updated pages have been flushed to disk.

Slide No.L2-1
Implementation of Atomicity and Durability (Cont.)
db_pointer always points to the current consistent copy of the
database.
In case transaction fails, old consistent copy pointed to by
db_pointer can be used, and the shadow copy can be deleted.
The shadow-database scheme:
Assumes that only one transaction is active at a time.
Assumes disks do not fail
Useful for text editors, but
extremely inefficient for large databases (why?)
Variant called shadow paging reduces copying of
data, but is still not practical for large databases
Does not handle concurrent transactions
Will study better schemes in Chapter 17.

Slide No.L2-2
 Concurrent Executions
Multiple transactions are allowed to run concurrently in the
system. Advantages are:
increased processor and disk utilization, leading to
better transaction throughput
E.g. one transaction can be using the CPU while
another is reading from or writing to the disk
reduced average response time for transactions: short
transactions need not wait behind long ones.
Concurrency control schemes mechanisms to achieve
isolation
that is, to control the interaction among the concurrent
transactions in order to prevent them from destroying the
consistency of the database
Will study in Chapter 16, after studying notion
of correctness of concurrent executions.

Slide No.L2-3
 Schedules
Schedule a sequences of instructions that specify the
chronological order in which instructions of concurrent
transactions are executed
a schedule for a set of transactions must consist of all
instructions of those transactions
must preserve the order in which the instructions
appear in each individual transaction.
A transaction that successfully completes its execution
will have a commit instructions as the last statement
by default transaction assumed to execute commit
instruction as its last step
A transaction that fails to successfully complete its
execution will have an abort instruction as the last
statement

Slide No.L2-4
 Schedule 1
Let T1 transfer $50 from A to B, and T2 transfer 10% of the
balance from A to B.
A serial schedule in which T1 is followed by T2 :

Slide No.L2-5
 Schedule 2
A serial schedule where T2 is followed by T1

Slide No.L2-6
 Schedule 3
Let T1 and T2 be the transactions defined previously. The
following schedule is not a serial schedule, but it is
equivalent to Schedule 1.

In Schedules 1, 2 and 3, the sum A + B is preserved.

Slide No.L2-7
 Schedule 4
The following concurrent schedule does not preserve
the value of (A + B ).

Slide No.L2-8
 Serializability
Basic Assumption Each transaction preserves database
consistency.
Thus serial execution of a set of transactions preserves database
consistency.
A (possibly concurrent) schedule is serializable if it is equivalent to a
serial schedule. Different forms of serial schedule
1. conflict serializability
2. view serializability
Simplified view of transactions
We ignore operations other than read and write instructions
We assume that transactions may perform arbitrary computations
on data in local buffers in between reads and writes.
Our simplified schedules consist of only read and write
instructions.

Slide No.L3-1
 Conflicting Instructions
Instructions li and lj of transactions Ti and Tj respectively,
conflict if and only if there exists some item Q accessed
by both li and lj, and at least one of these instructions
wrote Q.
1. li = read(Q), lj = read(Q). li and lj dont conflict.
2. li = read(Q), lj = write(Q). They conflict.
3. li = write(Q), lj = read(Q). They conflict
4. li = write(Q), lj = write(Q). They conflict
Intuitively, a conflict between li and lj forces a (logical)
temporal order between them.
If li and lj are consecutive in a schedule and they do
not conflict, their results would remain the same even
if they had been interchanged in the schedule.

Slide No.L3-2
 Conflict Serializability

If a schedule S can be transformed into a schedule S by a

series of swaps of non-conflicting instructions, we say that S
and S are conflict equivalent.
We say that a schedule S is conflict serializable if it is
conflict equivalent to a serial schedule

Slide No.L3-3
 Conflict Serializability (Cont.)
Schedule 3 can be transformed into Schedule 6, a serial
schedule where T2 follows T1, by series of swaps of non-
conflicting instructions.
Therefore Schedule 3 is conflict serializable.

Schedule 3 Schedule 6
Slide No.L3-4
 Conflict Serializability (Cont.)
Example of a schedule that is not conflict serializable:

We are unable to swap instructions in the above schedule to

obtain either the serial schedule < T3, T4 >, or the serial
schedule < T4, T3 >.

Slide No.L3-5
 View Serializability
Let S and S be two schedules with the same set of
transactions. S and S are view equivalent if the following
three conditions are met, for each data item Q,
1. If in schedule S, transaction Ti reads the initial value of Q,
then in schedule S also transaction Ti must read the
initial value of Q.
2. If in schedule S transaction Ti executes read(Q), and that
value was produced by transaction Tj (if any),
then in schedule S also transaction Ti must read the
value of Q that was produced by the same write(Q)
operation of transaction Tj .
1. The transaction (if any) that performs the final write(Q)
operation in schedule S must also perform the final
write(Q) operation in schedule S.
As can be seen, view equivalence is also based purely on reads
and writes alone.

Slide No.L3-6
 View Serializability (Cont.)
A schedule S is view serializable if it is view equivalent to
a serial schedule.
Every conflict serializable schedule is also view
serializable.
Below is a schedule which is view-serializable but not
conflict serializable.

What serial schedule is above equivalent to?

Every view serializable schedule that is not conflict
serializable has blind writes.

Slide No.L3-7
 Other Notions of Serializability
The schedule below produces same outcome as the serial
schedule < T1, T5 >, yet is not conflict equivalent or view
equivalent to it.

Determining such equivalence requires analysis of operations

other than read and write.

Slide No.L3-8
 Recoverable Schedules
Need to address the effect of transaction failures on concurrently
running transactions.
Recoverable schedule if a transaction Tj reads a data
item previously written by a transaction Ti , then the
commit operation of Ti appears before the commit
operation of Tj.
The following schedule (Schedule 11) is not recoverable if
T9 commits immediately after the read

If T8 should abort, T9 would have read (and possibly shown to the

user) an inconsistent database state. Hence, database must
ensure that schedules are recoverable.

Slide No.L4-1
 Cascading Rollbacks
Cascading rollback a single transaction failure leads to
a series of transaction rollbacks. Consider the following
schedule where none of the transactions has yet
committed (so the schedule is recoverable)

If T10 fails, T11 and T12 must also be rolled back.

Can lead to the undoing of a significant amount of work

Slide No.L4-2
 Cascadeless Schedules

Cascadeless schedules cascading rollbacks cannot occur;

for each pair of transactions Ti and Tj such that Tj reads a
data item previously written by Ti, the commit operation of Ti
appears before the read operation of Tj.
Every cascadeless schedule is also recoverable
It is desirable to restrict the schedules to those that are
cascadeless

Slide No.L4-3
 Concurrency Control
A database must provide a mechanism that will ensure
that all possible schedules are
either conflict or view serializable, and
are recoverable and preferably cascadeless
A policy in which only one transaction can execute at a
time generates serial schedules, but provides a poor degree
of concurrency
Are serial schedules recoverable/cascadeless?
Testing a schedule for serializability after it has executed is
a little too late!
Goal to develop concurrency control protocols that will
assure serializability.

Slide No.L4-4
 Concurrency Control vs. Serializability Tests
Concurrency-control protocols allow concurrent schedules,
but ensure that the schedules are conflict/view serializable,
and are recoverable and cascadeless .
Concurrency control protocols generally do not examine the
precedence graph as it is being created
Instead a protocol imposes a discipline that avoids
nonseralizable schedules.
We study such protocols in Chapter 16.
Different concurrency control protocols provide different
tradeoffs between the amount of concurrency they allow and
the amount of overhead that they incur.
Tests for serializability help us understand why a
concurrency control protocol is correct.

Slide No.L4-5
 Weak Levels of Consistency

Some applications are willing to live with weak levels of

consistency, allowing schedules that are not serializable
E.g. a read-only transaction that wants to get an
approximate total balance of all accounts
E.g. database statistics computed for query optimization
can be approximate (why?)
Such transactions need not be serializable with respect to
other transactions
Tradeoff accuracy for performance

Slide No.L4-6
 Levels of Consistency in SQL-92
Serializable default
Repeatable read only committed records to be read,
repeated reads of same record must return same value.
However, a transaction may not be serializable it may find
some records inserted by a transaction but not find others.
Read committed only committed records can be read, but
successive reads of record may return different (but
committed) values.
Read uncommitted even uncommitted records may be
read.

Lower degrees of consistency useful for gathering approximate

information about the database
Warning: some database systems do not ensure serializable schedules
by default
E.g. Oracle and PostgreSQL by default support a level of
consistency called snapshot isolation (not part of the SQL
standard)
Slide No.L4-7
 Transaction Definition in SQL
Data manipulation language must include a construct for
specifying the set of actions that comprise a transaction.
In SQL, a transaction begins implicitly.
A transaction in SQL ends by:
Commit work commits current transaction and begins a
new one.
Rollback work causes current transaction to abort.
In almost all database systems, by default, every SQL
statement also commits implicitly if it executes successfully
Implicit commit can be turned off by a database directive
E.g. in JDBC, connection.setAutoCommit(false);

Slide No.L4-8
 Implementation of Isolation

Schedules must be conflict or view serializable, and

recoverable, for the sake of database consistency, and
preferably cascadeless.
A policy in which only one transaction can execute at a
time generates serial schedules, but provides a poor
degree of concurrency.
Concurrency-control schemes tradeoff between the
amount of concurrency they allow and the amount of
overhead that they incur.
Some schemes allow only conflict-serializable schedules to
be generated, while others allow view-serializable
schedules that are not conflict-serializable.

Slide No.L5-1
Figure 15.6

Slide No.L5-2
 Testing for Serializability

Consider some schedule of a set of transactions T1, T2,

..., Tn
Precedence graph a direct graph where the
vertices are the transactions (names).
We draw an arc from Ti to Tj if the two transaction
conflict, and Ti accessed the data item on which the
conflict arose earlier.
We may label the arc by the item that was accessed.
Example 1 x

Slide No.L5-3
Example Schedule (Schedule A) + Precedence Graph

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
read(X)
read(Y)
read(Z)
read(V)
read(W) T1 T2
read(W)
read(Y)
write(Y)
write(Z)
read(U) T4
read(Y)
T3
write(Y)
read(Z)
write(Z)
T5
read(U)
write(U)
Slide No.L5-4
 Test for Conflict Serializability
A schedule is conflict serializable if and only
if its precedence graph is acyclic.
Cycle-detection algorithms exist which take
order n2 time, where n is the number of
vertices in the graph.
(Better algorithms take order n + e where
e is the number of edges.)
If precedence graph is acyclic, the
serializability order can be obtained by a
topological sorting of the graph.
This is a linear order consistent with the
partial order of the graph.
For example, a serializability order for
Schedule A would be
T5 T1 T3 T2 T4
Are there others?

Slide No.L5-5
 Test for View Serializability
The precedence graph test for conflict serializability
cannot be used directly to test for view serializability.
Extension to test for view serializability has cost
exponential in the size of the precedence graph.
The problem of checking if a schedule is view serializable
falls in the class of NP-complete problems.
Thus existence of an efficient algorithm is extremely
unlikely.
However practical algorithms that just check some
sufficient conditions for view serializability can still be
used.

Slide No.L5-6