|
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
|
 |
2
|
|
| |
3
|
|
 |
4
|
|
 |
5
|
|
 |
6
|
|
 |
7
|
|
 |
8
|
|
| |
9
|
|
| |
10
|
|
| |
11
|
|
| |
12
|
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
|
 |
15
|
|
| |
16
|
|
 |
17
|
Michael J. Carey , Michael J. Franklin , Miron Livny , Eugene J. Shekita, Data caching tradeoffs in client-server DBMS architectures, Proceedings of the 1991 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, p.357-366, May 29-31, 1991, Denver, Colorado, United States
|
| |
18
|
|
| |
19
|
|
 |
20
|
|
| |
21
|
|
| |
22
|
|
 |
23
|
|
 |
24
|
|
| |
25
|
|
| |
26
|
|
| |
27
|
FRANASZEK, P. A., ROBINSON, J. T., AND THOMASIAN, A. 1991a. Adaptive concurrency control scheme for transaction processing. IBM Tech. Disclosure Bull. 33, 9 (Feb.), 29-30.
|
| |
28
|
FRANASZEK, P. A., ROBINSON, J. T., AND THOMASIAN, A. 1991b. Integrated concurrency control/ CPU scheduling. IBM Tech. Disclosure Bull. 33, 9 (Feb.), 37-40.
|
 |
29
|
|
| |
30
|
GALLER, B.I. AND BOS, L. 1983. A model of transaction blocking in databases. Perform. Eval. 3, 95-122.
|
 |
31
|
|
 |
32
|
|
| |
33
|
|
| |
34
|
|
| |
35
|
|
| |
36
|
|
 |
37
|
|
| |
38
|
|
| |
39
|
|
 |
40
|
|
| |
41
|
|
| |
42
|
|
 |
43
|
|
| |
44
|
|
| |
45
|
|
 |
46
|
|
 |
47
|
|
| |
48
|
|
 |
49
|
|
 |
50
|
|
| |
51
|
|
| |
52
|
|
| |
53
|
LYNCH, N., MERRITT, M., WEIHL, W., AND FEKETE, A. 1994. Atomic Transactions. Morgan- Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.
|
 |
54
|
|
| |
55
|
|
| |
56
|
MENASCE, D.A. AND NAKANISHI, T. 1982. Optimistic versus pessimistic concurrency control mechanisms in database management systerns. Inf. Syst. 7, 1, 13-27.
|
| |
57
|
|
| |
58
|
MOHAN, C. 1992. Less optimism about optimistic concurrency control. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Research Issues on Data Engineering (Tempe, AZ, Feb.), 199-204.
|
 |
59
|
|
 |
60
|
|
 |
61
|
C. Mohan , Hamid Pirahesh , Raymond Lorie, Efficient and flexible methods for transient versioning of records to avoid locking by read-only transactions, Proceedings of the 1992 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, p.124-133, June 02-05, 1992, San Diego, California, United States
|
| |
62
|
|
| |
63
|
MORRIS, R. J. T. AND TONG, W.S. 1985. Performance analysis of locking and optimistic concurrency control algorithms. Perform. Eval. 5, 2, 105-118.
|
| |
64
|
|
 |
65
|
|
| |
66
|
|
| |
67
|
Ozsu, M.T. 1994. Transaction models and transaction management in object-oriented database management systems. In Advances in Object-Oriented Database Systems. A. Dogac, M.T. Ozsu, A. Biliris, and T. Sellis, Eds. Springer-Verlag, New York, 147-184.
|
 |
68
|
Peter Peinl , Andreas Reuter , Harald Sammer, High contention in a stock trading database: a case study, Proceedings of the 1988 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, p.260-268, June 01-03, 1988, Chicago, Illinois, United States
|
 |
69
|
|
 |
70
|
|
 |
71
|
|
| |
72
|
|
| |
73
|
|
| |
74
|
REUTER, A. 1985. The transaction pipeline processor. In International Workshop on High Performance Transaction Systems (Pacific Grove, CA, Sept.).
|
| |
75
|
|
| |
76
|
ROBINSON, g.T. 1982b. Experiments with transaction processing on a multiprocessor. IBM Res. Rep. RC 9725, Yorktown Heights, NY, Dec.
|
| |
77
|
ROBINSON, g.T. 1984. Separating policy from correctness in concurrency control design. Softw. Pract. Exper. 14, 9 (Sept.), 827-844.
|
 |
78
|
|
| |
79
|
|
| |
80
|
RYU, I. K. AND THOMASIAN, A. 1988. Performance analysis of centralized databases with static locking. Unpublished rep., IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY.
|
 |
81
|
|
| |
82
|
|
 |
83
|
|
| |
84
|
|
 |
85
|
|
| |
86
|
|
| |
87
|
|
 |
88
|
|
| |
89
|
|
| |
90
|
|
| |
91
|
TAY, Y.C. 1990. Issues in modelinglocking performance. In Stochastic Analysis of Computer and Communication Systems, H. Takagi, Ed., North-Holland, New York, 631-658.
|
 |
92
|
|
 |
93
|
|
| |
94
|
THOMASIAN, A. 1982. An iterative solution to the queueing network model of a DBMS with dynamic locking. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Computer Measurement Group Conference (San Diego, Dec.), 252-261.
|
| |
95
|
|
| |
96
|
|
 |
97
|
|
 |
98
|
|
| |
99
|
|
| |
100
|
THOMASIAN, n. 1995a. Performance analysis of locking policies with limited wait depth. Perform. Eval. (submitted). Also IBM Res. Rep. RC 19977, Hawthorne, NY, March.
|
| |
101
|
|
| |
102
|
|
| |
103
|
|
| |
104
|
|
| |
105
|
|
| |
106
|
|
| |
107
|
THOMASIAN, A. AND RAHM, E. 1990. A new distributed optimistic concurrency control method and a comparison of its performance with two-phase locking. In Proceedings of 1990 International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (Paris, May), 294-301.
|
 |
108
|
|
| |
109
|
THOMASIAN, A. AND RYU, I. K. 1986. Performance comparison of concurrency control methods for shared centralized databases. Unpublished rep., IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY.
|
| |
110
|
|
| |
111
|
|
| |
112
|
|
 |
113
|
|
| |
114
|
|
 |
115
|
|
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
D.
Software
D.4
OPERATING SYSTEMS
D.4.8
Performance
Subjects:
Modeling and prediction
Additional Classification:
H.
Information Systems
H.2
DATABASE MANAGEMENT
H.2.4
Systems
Subjects:
Transaction processing
General Terms:
Algorithms,
Performance
Keywords:
Markov chains,
adaptive methods,
concurrency control,
data contention,
deadlocks,
flow diagrams,
load control,
optimistic concurrency control,
queueing network models,
restart-oriented locking methods,
serialiazability,
thrashing,
two-phase locking,
two-phase processing,
wait depth limited methods
|