DOCSLIB.ORG

Database Replication Using Generalized Snapshot Isolation∗

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Database Replication Using Generalized Snapshot Isolation∗ Database Replication Using Generalized Snapshot Isolation∗ Sameh Elnikety Fernando Pedone Willy Zwaenepoel School of Computer and Faculty of Informatics School of Computer and Communication Sciences Universita` della Svizzera Italiana Communication Sciences EPFL USI EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland Lugano, Switzerland Lausanne, Switzerland service because if a replica fails, information can still be Abstract accessed at other replicas. In a centralized dynamic content Web site, the dynamic data is most often stored in a database Generalized snapshot isolation extends snapshot isola- [8, 3]. Therefore, one of the key problems in replicating dy- tion as used in Oracle and other databases in a manner suit- namic Web content generation is replicating the database able for replicated databases. While (conventional) snap- and keeping the replicas consistent. shot isolation requires that transactions observe the “lat- Ideally, we would like to provide the same database con- est” snapshot of the database, generalized snapshot iso- sistency as in the centralized database case. We focus here lation allows the use of “older” snapshots, facilitating a on databases providing snapshot isolation [6]. In such a replicated implementation. We show that many of the de- database, a transaction T obtains at the beginning of its ex- sirable properties of snapshot isolation remain. In particu- ecution the latest snapshot of the database, reflecting the lar, read-only transactions never block or abort and they do writes of all transactions that have committed before trans- not cause update transactions to block or abort. Moreover, action T starts. At commit, the database checks that the under certain assumptions on the transaction workload the writeset of transaction T does not intersect with the write- execution is serializable. sets of the transactions that committed since T ’s snapshot. An implementation of generalized snapshot isolation can If there is a non-zero intersection, transaction T aborts; oth- choose which past snapshot it uses. An interesting choice erwise, it commits. for a replicated database is prefix-consistent snapshot isola- Snapshot isolation is popular for a number of reasons, tion, in which the snapshot contains at least all the writes of one of which is the pragmatic reason that Oracle [9, 20] locally committed transactions. We present two implemen- and other database vendors [25, 32, 19] use it. More funda- tations of prefix-consistent snapshot isolation. We conclude mentally, snapshot isolation never requires read-only trans- with an analytical performance model of one implementa- actions to block or abort, and read-only transactions do not tion, demonstrating the benefits, in particular reduced la- cause update transactions to block or abort. This advantage tency for read-only transactions, and showing that the po- is significant for workloads with a large fraction of read- tential downsides, in particular change in abort rate of up- only transactions (such as those resulting from the gener- date transactions, are limited. ation of dynamic Web content). Snapshot isolation pro- vides a weaker form of consistency than serializability, but one that programmers can understand and use. Moreover, 1. Introduction Fekete et al. [11, 13] have recently demonstrated that under certain conditions on the workload transactions executing There is increasing interest in replicating the generation on a database with snapshot isolation produce serializable of dynamic Web content [2, 14] for many Web services to histories. achieve efficiency and fault tolerance. The user’s request is executed on a “nearby” replica, thereby avoiding long 1.1. Generalized Snapshot Isolation (GSI) roundtrip delays and distributing the load over the replicas. In addition, replication increases the availability of a Web Extending snapshot isolation to replicated databases is not straightforward. Intuitively, the problem stems from the ∗This research was partially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant number 200021-107824: System Support for Distributed requirement that a transaction must see the “latest” snap- Dynamic Content Web Services. shot when it starts execution. In contrast with the central- ized case, the notion of “latest” is not a priori well-defined 1.3. Contributions in a distributed setting. Implementations of an ordering that defines the notion of “latest” and makes the corresponding The contributions of this paper are as follows: (1) intro- snapshot available may impose a delay at the start of a trans- ducing generalized snapshot isolation, (2) establishing two action. Imposing such a delay at the beginning of read-only sufficient conditions (one dynamic condition and one stat- transactions voids one of the main benefits of snapshot iso- ically checkable condition) that guarantee serializable exe- lation. cution under generalized snapshot isolation, (3) introducing Generalized snapshot isolation is based on the observa- prefix-consistent snapshot isolation and two implementa- tion that a transaction need not necessarily observe the “lat- tion strategies for replicated databases, and (4) analytically est” snapshot. It can observe an older snapshot, and many characterizing the relative performance of prefix-consistent properties as those in (conventional) snapshot isolation con- snapshot isolation to conventional snapshot isolation. tinue to hold. Conditions can be identified that guarantee se- rializable execution. With a suitable choice of “older”, read- 1.4. Roadmap only transactions execute without delay or aborts, and they do not cause update transactions to block or abort. Trans- This paper is organized as follows: We present the actions may, however, observe somewhat older data. To database model in Section 2 and develop generalized snap- commit an update transaction, its writeset must be checked shot isolation in Section 3. Then we discuss how to guaran- against the writesets of recently committed transactions, as tee serializability in Section 4, and provide a dynamic and before. The probability of an abort increases, as it becomes a static condition for serializability under generalized snap- more likely that at the time of its commit an update trans- shot isolation. action finds that another transaction has written to the same In section 5, we present prefix-consistent snapshot iso- data as it did since the time of its snapshot. lation, which is an instance of generalized snapshot iso- lation that is suitable for replicated databases. In section The ability to start from an older snapshot gives rise to 6, we present a model for a distributed system with repli- an interesting spectrum of possibilities with attendant per- cated databases. We first show that conventional snapshot formance tradeoffs. At one end of the spectrum is the con- isolation must impose a delay on read-only transactions in ventional notion of snapshot isolation, further referred to in that model, and then we develop two algorithms that imple- this paper as conventional snapshot isolation, in which each ment prefix-consistent snapshot isolation , one using cen- transaction reads the latest snapshot. This is clearly appro- tralized certification and the other using distributed certi- priate in a centralized setting where the latest snapshot is fication. In Section 7, we compare analytically the per- trivially available, and where using the latest snapshot min- formance of prefix-consistent snapshot isolation to conven- imizes the probability of aborts. At the other end of the tional snapshot isolation. Finally, we discuss related work spectrum is the trivial solution in which all transactions ob- in Section 8 and derive our conclusions and future research serve the initial snapshot (i.e., the database state as in the directions in Section 9. beginning of execution). We omit the proofs of propositions and of correctness of the algorithms due to space limitations. We, however, provide all proofs in a technical report [10]. 1.2. Prefix-Consistent Snapshot Isolation (PCSI) 2. Database Model and Definitions In a replicated setting, an interesting positioning in this 2.1. Database Model spectrum is for a transaction to take as its initial snapshot the latest snapshot that is locally available on its replica. We assume that a database is a collection of uniquely We capture this idea in prefix-consistent snapshot isolation. identified data items. Several versions of each data item As an instance of generalized snapshot isolation, prefix- may co-exist simultaneously in the database, but there is a consistent snapshot isolation maintains the desirable prop- total order among the versions of each data item. A snap- erties of generalized snapshot isolation. Read-only trans- shot of the database is a committed state of the database. actions never block or abort, and they do not cause update A transaction Ti is a sequence of read and write oper- transactions to block or abort. Moreover, transactions ob- ations on data items, followed by either a commit or an serve at least all the writes that have committed on the lo- abort operation. We denote Ti’s write operation on item cal replica before they start. This property is important in X by Wi(Xi). If Ti executes Wi(Xi) and commits, then a a workflow of transactions, in which a user submits a se- new version of X, denoted by Xi, is added to the database. quence of transactions to a replica. Moreover, we denote Ti’s read operation on item Xj by Ri(Xj). Ti’s commit or abort is denoted by Ci or Ai, re- From this definition, only committed update transactions spectively. Finally, to simplify the presentation, we assume may impact update transaction Ti. Read-only transactions that transactions do not contain redundant read or write op- and uncommitted transactions cannot impact Ti. When 1 erations : A transaction reads any item at most once and committing an active update transaction Ti, we say “Tj im- writes any item at most once, and if a transaction writes an pacts Ti” to mean that if Ti were to commit now, then Tj item, it does not read that item afterwards. would impact Ti. A transaction is read-only if it contains no write oper- ation, and is update otherwise.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Fast Implementation of Parallel Snapshot Isolation
    A FAST IMPLEMENTATION OF PARALLEL SNAPSHOT ISOLATION UNA IMPLEMENTACIÓN RÁPIDA DE PARALLEL SNAPSHOT ISOLATION Borja Arnau de Régil Basáñez Trabajo de Fin de Grado del Grado en Ingeniería Informática Facultad de Informática, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Junio 2020 Director: Maria Victoria López López Co-director: Alexey Gotsman Contents Acknowledgements iv Abstract v Resumen vi 1. Introduction1 1.1. Motivation . .1 1.2. Goals . .2 1.3. Work Plan . .3 1.4. Document Structure . .3 1.5. Sources and Repositories . .4 1.6. Related Program Courses . .4 2. Preliminaries5 2.1. Notation . .5 2.1.1. Objects and Replication . .5 2.1.2. Transactions . .5 2.1.3. Histories . .6 2.2. Consistency Models . .6 2.2.1. Read Committed (RC) . .7 2.2.2. Serialisability (SER) . .8 2.2.3. Snapshot Isolation (SI) . .9 2.2.4. Parallel Snapshot Isolation (PSI) . 10 2.2.5. Non-Monotonic Snapshot Isolation (NMSI) . 11 2.2.6. Anomaly Comparison . 11 3. The fastPSI protocol 12 3.1. Consistency Guarantees . 12 3.2. Overview and System Model . 13 3.3. Server data structures . 14 3.4. Protocol Description . 16 3.4.1. Transaction Execution . 16 3.4.2. Transaction Termination . 20 3.5. Consistency Tradeoffs and Read Aborts . 23 ii 4. Implementation and Evaluation 26 4.1. Implementation . 26 4.2. Evaluation . 27 4.2.1. Performance & Scalability Limits . 28 4.2.2. Abort Ratio . 31 5. Related Work 35 6. Conclusions and Future Work 37 6.1. Conclusions . 37 6.2. Future Work . 37 A. Serialisable and Read Committed Protocols 39 A.1.
    [Show full text]
  • One-Copy Serializability with Snapshot Isolation Under the Hood
    One-Copy Serializability with Snapshot Isolation under the Hood Mihaela A. Bornea 1, Orion Hodson 2, Sameh Elnikety 2, Alan Fekete 3 1Athens U. of Econ and Business, 2Microsoft Research, 3University of Sydney Abstract—This paper presents a method that allows a repli- With careful design and engineering, SI engines can be cated database system to provide a global isolation level stronger replicated to get even higher performance with a replicated than the isolation level provided on each individual database form of SI such as Generalized Snapshot Isolation (GSI) [13], replica. We propose a new multi-version concurrency control al- gorithm called, serializable generalized snapshot isolation (SGSI), which is also not serializable. The objective of this paper is that targets middleware replicated database systems. Each replica to provide a concurrency control algorithm for replicated SI runs snapshot isolation locally and the replication middleware databases that achieves almost the same performance as GSI guarantees global one-copy serializability. We introduce novel while providing global one-copy-serializability (1SR). techniques to provide a stronger global isolation level, namely To guarantee serializability, concurrency control algorithms readset extraction and enhanced certification that prevents read- write and write-write conflicts in a replicated setting. We prove typically require access to data read and written in update the correctness of the proposed algorithm, and build a proto- transactions. Accessing this data is especially difficult in a type replicated database system to evaluate SGSI performance replicated database system since built-in facilities inside a experimentally. Extensive experiments with an 8 replica database centralized DBMS, like the lock manager, are not available system under the TPC-W workload mixes demonstrate the at a global level.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Snapshot Isolation Serializable
    Making Snapshot Isolation Serializable ALAN FEKETE University of Sydney DIMITRIOS LIAROKAPIS, ELIZABETH O’NEIL, and PATRICK O’NEIL University of Massachusetts and DENNIS SHASHA Courant Institute Snapshot Isolation (SI) is a multiversion concurrency control algorithm, first described in Berenson et al. [1995]. SI is attractive because it provides an isolation level that avoids many of the com- mon concurrency anomalies, and has been implemented by Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server (with certain minor variations). SI does not guarantee serializability in all cases, but the TPC-C benchmark application [TPC-C], for example, executes under SI without serialization anoma- lies. All major database system products are delivered with default nonserializable isolation levels, often ones that encounter serialization anomalies more commonly than SI, and we sus- pect that numerous isolation errors occur each day at many large sites because of this, lead- ing to corrupt data sometimes noted in data warehouse applications. The classical justification for lower isolation levels is that applications can be run under such levels to improve efficiency when they can be shown not to result in serious errors, but little or no guidance has been of- fered to application programmers and DBAs by vendors as to how to avoid such errors. This article develops a theory that characterizes when nonserializable executions of applications can occur under SI. Near the end of the article, we apply this theory to demonstrate that the TPC-C benchmark application has no serialization anomalies under SI, and then discuss how this demon- stration can be generalized to other applications. We also present a discussion on how to modify the program logic of applications that are nonserializable under SI so that serializability will be guaranteed.
    [Show full text]
  • Firebird 3.0 Developer's Guide
    Firebird 3.0 Developer’s Guide Denis Simonov Version 1.1, 27 June 2020 Preface Author of the written material and creator of the sample project on five development platforms, originally as a series of magazine articles: Denis Simonov Translation of original Russian text to English: Dmitry Borodin (MegaTranslations Ltd) Editor of the translated text: Helen Borrie Copyright © 2017-2020 Firebird Project and all contributing authors, under the Public Documentation License Version 1.0. Please refer to the License Notice in the Appendix This volume consists of chapters that walk through the development of a simple application for several language platforms, notably Delphi, Microsoft Entity Framework and MVC.NET (“Model-View-Controller”) for web applications, PHP and Java with the Spring framework. It is hoped that the work will grow in time, with contributions from authors using other stacks with Firebird. 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. About the Firebird Developer’s Guide: for Firebird 3.0 . 6 1.1. About the Author . 6 1.1.1. Translation… . 6 1.1.2. … and More Translation . 6 1.2. Acknowledgments . 6 2. The examples.fdb Database . 8 2.1. Database Creation Script. 8 2.1.1. Database Aliases . 9 2.2. Creating the Database Objects. 10 2.2.1. Domains . 10 2.2.2. Primary Tables. 11 2.2.3. Secondary Tables . 13 2.2.4. Stored Procedures. 17 2.2.5. Roles and Privileges for Users . 25 2.3. Saving and Running the Script . 26 2.4. Loading Test Data . 27 3. Developing Firebird Applications in Delphi . 28 3.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ensuring Consistency Under the Snapshot Isolation
    World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering Vol:8, No:7, 2014 Ensuring Consistency under the Snapshot Isolation Carlos Roberto Valencio,ˆ Fabio´ Renato de Almeida, Thatiane Kawabata, Leandro Alves Neves, Julio Cesar Momente, Mario Luiz Tronco, Angelo Cesar Colombini Abstract—By running transactions under the SNAPSHOT isolation both transactions write the same data item, giving rise to we can achieve a good level of concurrency, specially in databases a write-write conflict. In turn, a temporal overlap occurs with high-intensive read workloads. However, SNAPSHOT is not < when Ti and Tj run concurrently, that is tsi tcj and immune to all the problems that arise from competing transactions < and therefore no serialization warranty exists. We propose in this tsj tci [2]. Thus, a transaction Ti under the SNAPSHOT paper a technique to obtain data consistency with SNAPSHOT by using isolation is allowed to commit only if no other transaction with δ <δ< some special triggers that we named DAEMON TRIGGERS. Besides commit-timestamp in the running time of Ti (tsi tci ) keeping the benefits of the SNAPSHOT isolation, the technique is wrote a data item also written by Ti [4]. specially useful for those database systems that do not have an Implementations of the SNAPSHOT isolation have the isolation level that ensures serializability, like Firebird and Oracle. We describe all the anomalies that might arise when using the SNAPSHOT advantage that writes of a transaction do not block the isolation and show how to preclude them with DAEMON TRIGGERS. reads of others.
    [Show full text]
  • Where We Are Snapshot Isolation Snapshot Isolation
    Where We Are • ACID properties of transactions CSE 444: Database Internals • Concept of serializability • How to provide serializability with locking • Lowers level of isolation with locking • How to provide serializability with optimistic cc Lectures 16 – Timestamps/Multiversion or Validation Transactions: Snapshot Isolation • Today: lower level of isolation with multiversion cc – Snapshot isolation Magda Balazinska - CSE 444, Spring 2012 1 Magda Balazinska - CSE 444, Spring 2012 2 Snapshot Isolation Snapshot Isolation • Not described in the book, but good overview in Wikipedia • A type of multiversion concurrency control algorithm • Provides yet another level of isolation • Very efficient, and very popular – Oracle, PostgreSQL, SQL Server 2005 • Prevents many classical anomalies BUT… • Not serializable (!), yet ORACLE and PostgreSQL use it even for SERIALIZABLE transactions! – But “serializable snapshot isolation” now in PostgreSQL Magda Balazinska - CSE 444, Fall 2010 3 Magda Balazinska - CSE 444, Fall 2010 4 Snapshot Isolation Rules Snapshot Isolation (Details) • Multiversion concurrency control: • Each transactions receives a timestamp TS(T) – Versions of X: Xt1, Xt2, Xt3, . • Transaction T sees snapshot at time TS(T) of the database • When T reads X, return XTS(T). • When T commits, updated pages are written to disk • When T writes X: if other transaction updated X, abort – Not faithful to “first committer” rule, because the other transaction U might have committed after T. But once we abort • Write/write conflicts resolved by “first
    [Show full text]
  • SQL: Transactions Introduction to Databases Compsci 316 Fall 2017 2 Announcements (Tue., Oct
    SQL: Transactions Introduction to Databases CompSci 316 Fall 2017 2 Announcements (Tue., Oct. 17) • Midterm graded • Sample solution already posted on Sakai • Project Milestone #1 feedback by email this weekend 3 Transactions • A transaction is a sequence of database operations with the following properties (ACID): • Atomic: Operations of a transaction are executed all-or- nothing, and are never left “half-done” • Consistency: Assume all database constraints are satisfied at the start of a transaction, they should remain satisfied at the end of the transaction • Isolation: Transactions must behave as if they were executed in complete isolation from each other • Durability: If the DBMS crashes after a transaction commits, all effects of the transaction must remain in the database when DBMS comes back up 4 SQL transactions • A transaction is automatically started when a user executes an SQL statement • Subsequent statements in the same session are executed as part of this transaction • Statements see changes made by earlier ones in the same transaction • Statements in other concurrently running transactions do not • COMMIT command commits the transaction • Its effects are made final and visible to subsequent transactions • ROLLBACK command aborts the transaction • Its effects are undone 5 Fine prints • Schema operations (e.G., CREATE TABLE) implicitly commit the current transaction • Because it is often difficult to undo a schema operation • Many DBMS support an AUTOCOMMIT feature, which automatically commits every single statement • You
    [Show full text]
  • Postgres-R(SI) Data Replication and Snapshot Isolation Example
    Postgres-R(SI) Data Replication and Snapshot Isolation Shuqing Wu McGill University Montreal, Canada Example: Cluster Replication . Cluster of DB replicas . Read-one-Write-All- Available . Performance • Distribute Load • Scale . Fault-Tolerance 1 Typical Replica Control . Keep copies consistent • Execute each update first at one replica • Return to user once one update has succeeded • Propagate updates to other replicas or execute updates at other replicas either after return to user (lazy) or before return to user (eager) W(x) ok x x x Replica Control . Challenge • Guarantee that updates succeed at all replicas • Combine with concurrency control . Primary Copy • Updates executed at primary and then sent to secondaries • Secondary only accept queries • Easry concurrency control . Update Everywhere • Each replica accepts update requests and propagates changes to others • Complex concurrency control but flexible W(x) W(x) W(x) W(x) 2 Middleware based . Client submits operations (e.g., SQL statements) to middleware . Middleware coordinates database replicas and where which operations are executed Client Middleware Middleware based . Many research prototypes, some commercial systems . Pro • No changes to DBS • Heterogeneous setup possible . Cons • Each solutions has particular restriction. For example . Transactions must be declared read-only/update in advance (primary copy approaches) . Transaction must declare all tables to be accessed in advance . Operations cannot be submitted one by one but in a bunch . Update must be executed on all replicas before confirmation is returned to user • Each operation filtered through the middleware . Inappropriate in any WAN communication (e.g., client/middleware) 3 Kernel Based . Each client connected to one replica . Transaction executed locally .
    [Show full text]
  • Precisely Serializable Snapshot Isolation
    Precisely Serializable Snapshot Isolation Stephen Revilak Ph.D. Dissertation Supervised by Patrick O'Neil University of Massachusetts Boston Nov. 8, 2011 1 / 38 What is Snapshot Isolation? Snapshot Isolation (SI) is a form of multiversion concurrency control. I The technique was first published in a 1995 paper, A Critique of ANSI Isolation Levels I SI is used in a variety of DBMS Systems: Oracle, Postgres, Microsoft SQL Server, BerkeleyDB, and others. SI's advantages and disadvantages: I Advantages: Good throughput. Reads never wait for writes. Writes never wait for reads. I Disadvantage: SI is not serializable; it permits anomalies that locking avoids. 2 / 38 What is PSSI? PSSI = Precisely Serializable Snapshot Isolation. PSSI is a set of extensions to SI that provide serializability. I PSSI detects dependency cycles; PSSI aborts transactions to break these cycles. I PSSI retains much of SI's throughput advantage. (Reads and writes do not block each other.) I PSSI is precise; PSSI minimizes the number of unnecessary aborts by waiting for complete cycles to form. 3 / 38 Talk Outline I Snapshot Isolation, SI anomalies, dependency theory I PSSI design I Testing and Experimental results 4 / 38 Mechanics of Snapshot Isolation I Each transaction has two timestamps: a start timestamp start(Ti ), and a commit timestamp, commit(Ti ). I All data is versioned (labeled with the writer's transaction id). Different transactions may read different versions of a single data item x. I When Ti reads x,Ti reads the last version of x committed prior to start(Ti ) I When Ti writes x, xi becomes visible to Tj that start after commit(Ti ).
    [Show full text]
  • Snapshot Isolation
    Advanced Database Systems Course introduction Feliz Gouveia UFP, january 2013 Introduction • 6 ECTS course of the 1st year, 2nd cycle of Engenharia Informática (Computer Science) • The Advanced Database Systems course extends the topics of the introductory Database Management Systems course, and introduces new ones: OODB, Spatial data, columnar databases Degree structure (2nd cycle) 1st year 2nd year IS Planning and Development / Mobile Final Project I (12) Networks and Services I (6) Mobile Computing (6) Knowledge Management / Mobile Networks and Services II (3) Professional Ethics (2) Multimedia and Interactive Systems / Mobile Applications Programming (4) Academic Internship (8) Programming Paradigms / Mobile Applications Project (4) Advanced Database Systems (6) Elective course (4) Artificial Intelligence (8) Research Methods (3) Distributed Systems (8) Final Project II (3) Man-Machine Interaction (6) Dissertation (27) Computer Security and Auditing (6) Elective course (4) Course goals • To provide the students with a better understanding of the essential techniques used in a Database Management System, either by revisiting them or by studying new approaches. • To provide students with knowledge to choose, design, and implement a dbms in a complex domain, making the best use of the available tools and techniques. • To provide students with knowledge to analyze and tune a given dbms, given a workload and usage patterns. Course goals • To allow the students to learn and experiment advanced database techniques, models and products, and to provide them with the knowledge to take decisions concerning implementation issues. • To provide students with knowledge to analyze, modify if necessary and experiment algorithms that make up the database internals. • To expose students to advanced topics and techniques that appear promising research directions.
    [Show full text]
  • Serializable Isolation for Snapshot Databases
    Serializable Isolation for Snapshot Databases This thesis is submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Information Technologies at The University of Sydney MICHAEL JAMES CAHILL August 2009 Copyright © 2009 Michael James Cahill All Rights Reserved Abstract Many popular database management systems implement a multiversion concurrency control algorithm called snapshot isolation rather than providing full serializability based on locking. There are well- known anomalies permitted by snapshot isolation that can lead to violations of data consistency by interleaving transactions that would maintain consistency if run serially. Until now, the only way to pre- vent these anomalies was to modify the applications by introducing explicit locking or artificial update conflicts, following careful analysis of conflicts between all pairs of transactions. This thesis describes a modification to the concurrency control algorithm of a database management system that automatically detects and prevents snapshot isolation anomalies at runtime for arbitrary ap- plications, thus providing serializable isolation. The new algorithm preserves the properties that make snapshot isolation attractive, including that readers do not block writers and vice versa. An implementa- tion of the algorithm in a relational database management system is described, along with a benchmark and performance study, showing that the throughput approaches that of snapshot isolation in most cases. iii Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Alan Fekete and Dr Uwe Röhm, without whose guid- ance I would not have reached this point. Many friends and colleagues, both at the University of Sydney and at Oracle, have helped me to develop my ideas and improve their expression.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of ANSI SQL Isolation Levels
    A Critique of ANSI SQL Isolation Levels Hal Berenson Microsoft Corp. [email protected] Phil Bernstein Microsoft Corp. [email protected] Jim Gray Microsoft Corp. [email protected] Jim Melton Sybase Corp. [email protected] Elizabeth O’Neil UMass/Boston [email protected] Patrick O'Neil UMass/Boston [email protected] June 1995 Technical Report MSR-TR-95-51 Microsoft Research Advanced Technology Division Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 “A Critique of ANSI SQL Isolation Levels,” Proc. ACM SIGMOD 95, pp. 1-10, San Jose CA, June 1995, © ACM. -1- A Critique of ANSI SQL Isolation Levels Hal Berenson Microsoft Corp. [email protected] Phil Bernstein Microsoft Corp. [email protected] Jim Gray U.C. Berkeley [email protected] Jim Melton Sybase Corp. [email protected] Elizabeth O’Neil UMass/Boston [email protected] Patrick O'Neil UMass/Boston [email protected] Abstract: ANSI SQL-92 [MS, ANSI] defines Isolation distinction is not crucial for a general understanding. Levels in terms of phenomena: Dirty Reads, Non-Re- The ANSI isolation levels are related to the behavior of peatable Reads, and Phantoms. This paper shows that lock schedulers. Some lock schedulers allow transactions these phenomena and the ANSI SQL definitions fail to to vary the scope and duration of their lock requests, thus characterize several popular isolation levels, including the departing from pure two-phase locking. This idea was in- standard locking implementations of the levels. troduced by [GLPT], which defined Degrees of Consistency Investigating the ambiguities of the phenomena leads to in three ways: locking, data-flow graphs, and anomalies.
    [Show full text]