Transactions

 Transaction Concept
 Transaction State
 Implementation of Atomicity and Durability
 Concurrent Executions
 Serializability
 Recoverability
 Implementation of Isolation
 Transaction Definition in SQL
 Testing for Serializability.
 Transaction Concept

 A transaction is a unit of program execution that

accesses and possibly updates various data items.
 A transaction must see a consistent database.
 During transaction execution the database may be
inconsistent.
 When the transaction is committed, the database must
be consistent.
 Two main issues to deal with:
 Failures of various kinds, such as hardware failures and
system crashes
 Concurrent execution of multiple transactions
 ACID Properties
To preserve 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.
 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)
 Consistency requirement – the sum of A and B is unchanged
by the execution of the transaction.
 Atomicity requirement — if the transaction fails after step 3 and
before step 6, the system should ensure that its updates are
not reflected in the database, else an inconsistency will result.
 Example of Fund Transfer (Cont.)

 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 despite failures.
 Isolation requirement — if between steps 3 and 6, another
transaction 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).
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.
 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 – only if no internal logical error
 kill the transaction
 Committed, after successful completion.
Transaction State (Cont.)
 Implementation of Atomicity and
Durability
 The recovery-management component of a database
system implements the support for atomicity and
durability.
 The shadow-database scheme:
 assume that only one transaction is active at a time.
 a pointer called db_pointer always points to the current
consistent copy of the database.
 all updates are made on a shadow copy of the database, and
db_pointer is made to point to the updated shadow copy
only after the transaction reaches partial commit and all
updated pages have been flushed to disk.
 in case transaction fails, old consistent copy pointed to by
db_pointer can be used, and the shadow copy can be
deleted.
 Implementation of Atomicity and Durability
(Cont.)
The shadow-database scheme:

 Assumes disks to not fail

 Useful for text editors, but extremely inefficient for large
databases: executing a single transaction requires copying
the entire database. Will see better schemes in Chapter 17.
 Concurrent Executions

 Multiple transactions are allowed to run concurrently in the

system. Advantages are:
 increased processor and disk utilization, leading to better
transaction throughput: 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, i.e., to control the interaction among the
concurrent transactions in order to prevent them from
destroying the consistency of the database
 Will study in Chapter 14, after studying notion of correctness of
concurrent executions.
 Schedules

 Schedules – sequences that indicate 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.
 Example Schedules
 Let T1 transfer $50 from A to B, and T2 transfer 10% of the balance
from A to B. The following is a serial schedule (Schedule 1 in the
text), in which T1 is followed by T2.
 Example Schedule (Cont.)
 Let T1 and T2 be the transactions defined previously. The
following schedule (Schedule 3 in the text) is not a serial
schedule, but it is equivalent to Schedule 1.

In both Schedule 1 and 3, the sum A + B is preserved.

 Example Schedules (Cont.)
 The following concurrent schedule (Schedule 4 in the
text) does not preserve the value of the the sum A + B.
 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 schedule
equivalence give rise to the notions of:
1. conflict serializability
2. view serializability
 We ignore operations other than read and write instructions,
and 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.
 Conflict Serializability

 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 don’t 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.
 Conflict Serializability (Cont.)
 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
 Example of a schedule that is not conflict serializable:

T3 T4
read(Q)
write(Q)
write(Q)

We are unable to swap instructions in the above schedule to

obtain either the serial schedule < T3, T4 >, or the serial
schedule < T4, T3 >.
 Conflict Serializability (Cont.)

 Schedule 3 below can be transformed into Schedule 1, a

serial schedule where T2 follows T1, by series of swaps of
non-conflicting instructions. Therefore Schedule 3 is conflict
serializable.
 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:
1. For each data item Q, if transaction Ti reads the initial value of Q in
schedule S, then transaction Ti must, in schedule S´, also read the
initial value of Q.
2. For each data item Q if transaction Ti executes read(Q) in schedule
S, and that value was produced by transaction Tj (if any), then
transaction Ti must in schedule S´ also read the value of Q that was
produced by transaction Tj .
3. For each data item Q, the transaction (if any) that performs the final
write(Q) operation in schedule S must perform the final write(Q)
operation in schedule S´.
As can be seen, view equivalence is also based purely on reads
and writes alone.
 View Serializability (Cont.)

 A schedule S is view serializable it is view equivalent to a serial

schedule.
 Every conflict serializable schedule is also view serializable.
 Schedule 9 (from text) — a schedule which is view-serializable
but not conflict serializable.

 Every view serializable schedule that is not conflict

serializable has blind writes.
 Other Notions of Serializability
 Schedule 8 (from text) given 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.
 Recoverability
Need to address the effect of transaction failures on concurrently
running transactions.
 Recoverable schedule — if a transaction Tj reads a data items
previously written by a transaction Ti , 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.
 Recoverability (Cont.)

 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
 Recoverability (Cont.)

 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
 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.
 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.
 Levels of consistency specified by SQL-92:
 Serializable — default
 Repeatable read
 Read committed
 Read uncommitted
 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, e.g., statistics for query optimizer.
 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

y
Example Schedule (Schedule A)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
read(X)
read(Y)
read(Z)
read(V)
read(W)
read(W)
read(Y)
write(Y)
write(Z)
read(U)
read(Y)
write(Y)
read(Z)
write(Z)
read(U)
write(U)
Precedence Graph for Schedule A

T1 T2

T4
T3
 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 .
 Test for View Serializability
 The precedence graph test for conflict serializability must be
modified to apply to a test for view serializability.
 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 unlikely.
However practical algorithms that just check some sufficient
conditions for view serializability can still be used.
 Concurrency Control vs. Serializability Tests

 Testing a schedule for serializability after it has executed is a

little too late!
 Goal – to develop concurrency control protocols that will assure
serializability. They will generally not examine the precedence
graph as it is being created; instead a protocol will impose a
discipline that avoids nonseralizable schedules.
Will study such protocols in Chapter 16.
 Tests for serializability help understand why a concurrency
control protocol is correct.
Schedule 2 -- A Serial Schedule in Which
T2 is Followed by T1
Schedule 5 -- Schedule 3 After Swapping A
Pair of Instructions
Schedule 6 -- A Serial Schedule That is
Equivalent to Schedule 3
Schedule 7
 Precedence Graph for
(a) Schedule 1 and (b) Schedule 2
Illustration of Topological Sorting
Precedence Graph
fig. 15.21