ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Apologizing versus asking permission: optimistic concurrency control for abstract data types
Full text PdfPdf (2.38 MB)
Source ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) archive
Volume 15 ,  Issue 1  (March 1990) table of contents
Pages: 96 - 124  
Year of Publication: 1990
ISSN:0362-5915
Author
M. Herlihy  Digital Equipment Corp., Cambridge, MA
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 10,   Downloads (12 Months): 63,   Citation Count: 24
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   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/10.1145/77643.77647
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

An optimistic concurrency control technique is one that allows transactions to execute without synchronization, relying on commit-time validation to ensure serializability. Several new optimistic concurrency control techniques for objects in decentralized distributed systems are described here, their correctness and optimality properties are proved, and the circumstances under which each is likely to be useful are characterized. Unlike many methods that classify operations only as Reads or Writes, these techniques systematically exploit type-specific properties of objects to validate more interleavings. Necessary and sufficient validation conditions can be derived directly from an object's data type specification. These techniques are also modular: they can be applied selectively on a per-object (or even per-operation) basis in conjunction with standard pessimistic techniques such as two-phase locking, permitting optimistic methods to be introduced exactly where they will be most effective. These techniques can be used to reduce the algorithmic complexity of achieving high levels of concurrency, since certain scheduling decisions that are NP-complete for pessimistic schedulers can be validated after the fact in time, independent of the level of concurrency. These techniques can also enhance the availability of replicated data, circumventing certain tradeoffs between concurrency and availability imposed by comparable pessimistic techniques.


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
AGRAWAL, D., BERNSTEIN, A. J., GUPTA, P., AND SENGUPTA, S. Distributed optimistic concurrency control with reduced rollback. Distributed Syst. 2, 1 (1987).
3
 
4
BADAL, D.Z. Concurrency control overhead or closer look at blocking vs. non-blocking concurrency control mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley Workshop, 1981, pp. 55-103.
5
 
6
BERNSTEIN, P. A., GOODMAN, N., AND LAI, M. Y. Two-part proof schema for database concurrency control. In Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley Workshop on Distributed Data Management and Computer Networks, 1981.
7
 
8
 
9
CERI, S,, AND OWICKI, S. On the use of optimistic methods for concurrency control in distributed databases. In Proceedings of the 6th Berkeley Workshop, of the 1982, pp. 117-130.
10
 
11
DUBOURDIEU, D. J. Implementation of distributed transactions. In Proceedings of the 1982 Berkeley Workshop on Distributed Data Management and Computer Networks, 1982, pp. 81-94.
12
13
14
 
15
 
16
GAWLICK, D. Processing "not spots" in high performance systems. In Proceedings COMPCON '85, 1985.
17
 
18
 
19
20
21
 
22
 
23
HERLIHY, M. P., LYNCH, N. A., MERRITT, M., AND WEIHL, W.E. On the correctness of orphan elimination algorithms. In Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computer Systems (FTCS) (July 1987).
24
 
25
JACOBSON, D.M. A protocol for optimistic transactions on abstract data types. Tech. Rep. TR 83-12-04, Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Seattle, 1984.
26
27
28
29
 
30
LAUSEN, G. Formal aspects of optimistic concurrency control in a multiversion data base system. Inform. Syst. 8, 4 (1983), 291-301.
 
31
MENASCE, D. A., AND NAKANISHI, N. Optimistic versus pessimistic concurrency control mechanisms in data base management systems. Inform. Syst. 7, 1 (1982), 13-27.
 
32
33
34
 
35
36
37
38
39
 
40
TAY, Y. C., GOODMAN, N., AND SURf, R. Performance evaluation of locking in databases: A survey. Tech. Rep. TR-17-84, Harvard Aiken Laboratory, Cambridge, Mass., 1984.
41
 
42
43
 
44

CITED BY  24