publication . Preprint . Article . 2014

Rethinking serializable multiversion concurrency control

Jose M. Faleiro; Daniel J. Abadi;
Open Access English
  • Published: 07 Dec 2014
Multi-versioned database systems have the potential to significantly increase the amount of concurrency in transaction processing because they can avoid read-write conflicts. Unfortunately, the increase in concurrency usually comes at the cost of transaction serializability. If a database user requests full serializability, modern multi-versioned systems significantly constrain read-write concurrency among conflicting transactions and employ expensive synchronization patterns in their design. In main-memory multi-core settings, these additional constraints are so burdensome that multi-versioned systems are often significantly outperformed by single-version syste...
free text keywords: Computer Science - Databases, Computer science, Optimistic concurrency control, Distributed concurrency control, Isolation (database systems), Global serializability, Commitment ordering, Multiversion concurrency control, Parallel computing, Distributed computing, Serializability, Snapshot isolation
34 references, page 1 of 3

[1] A. Adya, B. Liskov, and P. O'Neil. Generalized isolation level definitions. In Data Engineering, 2000. Proceedings. 16th International Conference on, pages 67-78. IEEE, 2000.

[2] D. Agrawal, A. J. Bernstein, P. Gupta, and S. Sengupta. Distributed optimistic concurrency control with reduced rollback. Distributed Computing, 2(1):45-59, 1987.

[3] M. K. Aguilera, A. Merchant, M. Shah, A. Veitch, and C. Karamanolis. Sinfonia: a new paradigm for building scalable distributed systems. In ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, volume 41, pages 159-174. ACM, 2007.

[4] T. E. Anderson. The performance of spin lock alternatives for shared-money multiprocessors. Parallel and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 1(1):6-16, 1990.

[5] H. Attiya, R. Guerraoui, D. Hendler, P. Kuznetsov, M. M. Michael, and M. Vechev. Laws of order: expensive synchronization in concurrent algorithms cannot be eliminated. In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, volume 46, pages 487-498. ACM, 2011.

[6] H. Berenson, P. Bernstein, J. Gray, J. Melton, E. O'Neil, and P. O'Neil. A critique of ansi sql isolation levels. In Proc. of SIGMOD, SIGMOD '95, pages 1-10, 1995.

[7] P. A. Bernstein and N. Goodman. Concurrency control in distributed database systems. ACM Comput. Surv., 13(2):185-221.

[8] P. A. Bernstein, D. W. Shipman, and J. B. Rothnie, Jr. Concurrency control in a system for distributed databases (sdd-1). ACM Trans. Database Syst., 5(1):18-51, 1980. [OpenAIRE]

[9] M. J. Cahill. Serializable Isolation for Snapshot Databases. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2009.

[10] M. J. Cahill, U. Röhm, and A. D. Fekete. Serializable isolation for snapshot databases. In Proc. of SIGMOD, SIGMOD '08, pages 729-738, 2008.

[11] B. F. Cooper, A. Silberstein, E. Tam, R. Ramakrishnan, and R. Sears. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with ycsb. SoCC '10, pages 143-154.

[12] J. M. Faleiro, A. Thomson, and D. J. Abadi. Lazy evaluation of transactions in database systems. SIGMOD '14, pages 15-26, 2014.

[13] A. Fekete. Allocating isolation levels to transactions. In Proc. of PODS, PODS '05, pages 206-215, 2005.

[14] A. Fekete, D. Liarokapis, E. O'Neil, P. O'Neil, and D. Shasha. Making snapshot isolation serializable. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 30(2):492-528, 2005.

[15] A. Fekete, E. O'Neil, and P. O'Neil. A read-only transaction anomaly under snapshot isolation. ACM SIGMOD Record, 33(3):12-14, 2004.

34 references, page 1 of 3
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue