ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
The complexity of testing predicate locks
Full text PdfPdf (835 KB)
Source International Conference on Management of Data archive
Proceedings of the 1979 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data table of contents
Boston, Massachusetts
SESSION: Database concurrency control table of contents
Pages: 127 - 133  
Year of Publication: 1979
ISBN:0-89791-001-X
Authors
Harry B. Hunt  Columbia University, New York, New York
Daniel J. Rosenkrantz  State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York
Sponsor
SIGMOD: ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 1,   Downloads (12 Months): 16,   Citation Count: 9
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/582095.582115
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The problem of testing predicates for satisfiability arises in several aspects of database systems such as the use of predicate locks in concurrency control [7]. Such problems are NP-complete even for "simple predicates", i.e. predicates consisting of Boolean combinations of comparisons between a field of a tuple and a constant. However, when the relations referred to by the predicates are of fixed degree, there is an algorithm whose runtime is bounded by a polynomial in the length of the predicate. This is true not only for "simple predicates" but also for predicates containing comparisons between a field and another field, possibly offset by a constant. The proofs involve showing that if a predicate is satisfiable, then it is satisfiable by a tuple whose field values are related to constants occurring in the predicate.


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
Cooper, D.C. Theorem-proving in arithmetic without multiplication. Machine Intelligence 7, B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1972, pp. 91--99.
 
5
 
6
Eswaran, K.P., and Chamberlain, D.D. Functional specifications of a subsystem for database integrity. Proc. Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, Framingham, Mass., Sept. 1975, pp. 48--68. (Available from ACM, New York)
7
 
8
Finkel, R.A., and Bentley, J.L. Quad trees: a data structure for retrieval on composite keys, Acta Inf., 4 (1974), 1--9.
 
9
Karp, R.M. Reducibility among combinatorial problems, In Complexity of Computer Computations, Miller, R.E. and Thatcher, J.W. (eds.) Plenum Press, New York, 1972, pp. 85--104.
 
10
 
11
 
12
Rivest, R. Partial match retrieval algorithms, SIAM J. Computing 5, 1 (March 1976), 19--50.
 
13
 
14
Stonebraker, M., and Nuehold, E. A distributed database version of INGRES. Rep. ERL-M612, Electron. Res. Lab., U. of Calif., Berkeley, Sept. 1976.
15

CITED BY  9
Collaborative Colleagues:
Harry B. Hunt: colleagues
Daniel J. Rosenkrantz: colleagues