1. Transaction Processing

2. 15.2 General Overview Where we ‘ve been... DBA skills for relational DB’s: Logical Schema Design  E/R diagrams  Decomposition and Normalization Query languages  RA, RC, SQL Integrity Constraints Transaction (today) Alternatives to relations (next week) Where we are going Database Implementation Issues (after midterm)

3. 15.3 What Does a DBMS Manage? What Does a DBMS Manage? 1. Data organization  E/R Model  Relational Model  2. Data Retrieval  Relational Algebra  Relational Calculus  SQL  3. Data Integrity  Integrity Constraints  Transactions

4. 15.4 Updates in SQL An example: UPDATE account SET balance = balance -50 WHERE acct_no = A102 account Dntn: A102: 300 Dntn: A15: 500 Mian: A142: 300 … … (1) Read (2) update (3) write Transaction: 1.Read(A) 2.A <- A -50 3.Write(A) What takes place: memory Disk

5. 15.5 The Threat to Data Integrity Consistent DB Name Acct bal -------- ------ ------ Joe A-33 300 Joe A-509 100 Joe’s total: 400 Consistent DB Name Acct bal -------- ------ ------ Joe A-33 250 Joe A-509 150 Joe’s total: 400 transaction Inconsistent DB Name Acct bal -------- ------ ------ Joe A-33 250 Joe A-509 100 Joe’s total: 350 What a Xaction should look like to Joe What actually happens during execution

6. 15.6 Transactions What?:  Updates to db that can be executed concurrently Why?: (1) Updates can require multiple reads, writes on a db e.g., transfer $50 from A-33 to A509 = read(A) A  A -50 write(A) read(B) B  B+50 write(B) (2) For performance reasons, db’s permit updates to be executed concurrently Concern: concurrent access/updates of data can compromise data integrity

7. 15.7 ACID Properties Atomicity: either all operations in a Xaction take effect, or none Consistency: operations, taken together preserve db consistency Isolation: intermediate, inconsistent states must be concealed from other Xactions Durability. If a Xaction successfully completes (“commits”), changes made to db must persist, even if system crashes Properties that a Xaction needs to have:

8. 15.8 Demonstrating ACID Transaction to transfer $50 from account A to account B: 1.read(A) 2.A := A – 50 3.write(A) 4.read(B) 5.B := B + 50 6.write(B) Consistency: total value A+B, unchanged by Xaction Atomicity: if Xaction fails after 3 and before 6, 3 should not affect db Durability: once user notified of Xaction commit, updates to A,B should not be undone by system failure Isolation: other Xactions should not be able to see A, B between steps 3-6

9. 15.9 Threats to ACID 1. Programmer Error e.g.: $50 substracted from A, $30 added to B  threatens consistency 2. System Failures e.g.: crash after write(A) and before write(B)  threatens atomicity e.g.: crash after write(B)  threatens durability 3. Concurrency E.g.: concurrent Xaction reads A, B between steps 3-6  threatens isolation

10. 15.10 Isolation Simplest way to guarantee: forbid concurrent Xactions! But, concurrency is desirable: (1) Achieves better throughput (TPS: transactions per second) one Xaction can use CPU while another is waiting for disk to service request (2) Achieves better average response time short Xactions don’t need to get stuck behind long ones Prohibiting concurrency is not an option

11. 15.11 Isolation Approach to ensuring Isolation:  Distinguish between “good” and “bad” concurrency  Prevent all “bad” (and sometime some “good”) concurrency from happening OR  Recognize “bad” concurrency when it happens and undo its effects (abort some transactions)  Pessimistic vs Optimistic CC Both pessimistic and optimistic approaches require distinguishing between good and bad concurrency How: concurrency characterized in terms of possible Xaction “schedules”

12. 15.12 Schedules Schedules – sequences that indicate the chronological order in which instructions of concurrent transactions are executed  a schedule for a set of transactions must consist of all instructions of those transactions  must preserve the order in which the instructions appear in each individual transaction T1 1 2 3 T2 A B C D T1 1 2 3 T2 A B C D one possible schedule:

13. 15.13 Example Schedules Constraint: The sum of A+B must be the same Before: 100+50 After: 45+105 T1 read(A) A <- A -50 write(A) read(B) B<-B+50 write(B) T2 read(A) tmp <- A*0.1 A <- A – tmp write(A) read(B) B <- B+ tmp write(B) Transactions: T1: transfers $50 from A to B T2: transfers 10% of A to B =150, consistent Example 1: a “serial” schedule

14. 15.14 Example Schedule Another “serial” schedule: T1 read(A) A <- A -50 write(A) read(B) B<-B+50 write(B) T2 read(A) tmp <- A*0.1 A <- A – tmp write(A) read(B) B <- B+ tmp write(B) Before: 100+50 After: 40+110 Consistent but not the same as previous schedule.. Either is OK! =150, consistent

15. 15.15 Example Schedule (Cont.) Another “good” schedule: T1 read(A) A <- A -50 write(A) read(B) B<-B+50 write(B) T2 read(A) tmp <- A*0.1 A <- A – tmp write(A) read(B) B <- B+ tmp write(B) Effect: Before After A 100 45 B 50 105 Same as one of the serial schedules Serializable

16. 15.16 Example Schedules (Cont.) A “bad” schedule Before: 100+50 = 150 After: 50+60 = 110 !! Not consistent T1 read(A) A <- A -50 write(A) read(B) B<-B+50 write(B) T2 read(A) tmp <- A*0.1 A <- A – tmp write(A) read(B) B <- B+ tmp write(B)

17. 15.17 Serializability How to distinguish good and bad schedules?  for previous example, any schedule leaving A+B = 150 is good Q: could we express good schedules in terms of integrity constraints? Ans: No. In general, won’t know A+B, can’t check value of A+B at given time for consistency Alternative: Serializability

18. 15.18 Serializability All schedules Serializable schedules “conflict serializable” schedules “view serializable” schedules serial Serializable: A schedule is serializable if its effects on the db are the equivalent to some serial schedule. Hard to esnure; more conservative approaches are used in practice

19. 15.19 Conflict Serializability Conservative approximation of serializability (conflict serializable => serializable but <= doesn’t hold) Idea: can we swap the execution order of consecutive operation wo/ affecting state of db, Xactions so as to leave a serial schedule?

20. 15.20 Conflict Serializability (Cont.) If a schedule S can be transformed into a schedule S´ by a series of swaps of non-conflicting instructions, we say that S and S´ are conflict equivalent. We say that a schedule S is conflict serializable if it is conflict equivalent to a serial schedule Ex: T1 …. read(A) T2 …. read(A). T1 …. read(A) T2 …. read(A). can be rewritten to equivalent schedule

21. 15.21 Conflict Serializability (Cont.) T1 1. Read(A) 2. A  A -50 3. Write(A) 4.Read(B) 5. B  B + 50 6. Write(B) T2 a. Read(A) b. tmp  A * 0.1 c. A  A - tmp d.Write(A) e. Read(B) f. B  B + tmp g. Write(B) Swaps: 4 d 4 c 4 b 4 a T1, T2 Example: 5 d 5 c 5 b 5 a 6 d 6 c 6 b 6 a Conflict serializble

22. 15.22 Conflict Serializability (Cont.) T1 read(A) A <- A -50 write(A) read(B) B<-B+50 write(B) T2 read(A) tmp <- A*0.1 A <- A – tmp write(A) read(B) B <- B+ tmp write(B) The effects of swaps Because example schedule could be swapped to this schedule ( ) example schedule is conflict serializable

23. 15.23 The swaps we made A. Reads and writes of different data elements e.g.: T1 T2 T1 T2 write(A) read(B) = read(B) write(A) OK because: value of B unaffected by write of A ( read(B) has same effect ) write of A is not undone by read of B ( write(A) has same effect) Note : T1 T2 T1 T2 write(A) read(A) = read(A) write(A) Why? In the first, T1 reads value of A written by T2. May be different value than previous value of A

24. 15.24 Swaps T1 T2 T1 T2 write(A) read(A) = read(A) write(A) What affect on state of db could above swap make? Suppose what follows read(A) in T1 is: read(C) C  C+A write(C) Unless T2 writes the same value to A, the first schedule will leave a different value for C than the second

25. 15.25 The swaps We Made A. Reads and writes of different data elements 4 d 6 a B. Reads of different data elements: 4 a C. Writes of different data elements: 6 d D. Any operation with a local operation OK because local operations don’t go to disk. Therefore, unaffected by other operations: 4 b 5 a.... 4 c To simplify, local operations are ommited from schedules

26. 15.26 Conflict Serializability (Cont.) T1 1. Read(A) 2. Write(A) 3. Read(B) 4. Write(B) T2 a. Read(A) b. Write(A) c. Read(B) d. Write(B) Swaps: 3 b 3 a 4 b 4 a T1, T2 Previous example wo/ local operations:

27. 15.27 Swappable Operations Swappable operations: 1.Any operation on different data element 2.Reads of the same data (Read(A)) (regardless of order of reads, the same value for A is read) Conflicts: T1: Read (A) T1: Write (A) T2: Read(A) T2: Write(A) OK R/W Conflict W/R ConflictW/W Conflict T1: Read(B) OK T1: Write(B) OK

28. 15.28 Conflicts on same item (1) READ/WRITE conflicts: conflict because value read depends on whether write has occured (2) WRITE/WRITE conflicts: conflict because value left in db depends on which write occured last (3) READ/READ : no conflict

29. 15.29 Conflict Serializability T 1 T 2 (1) read(Q) write(Q) (a) (2) write(Q) Q: Is the following shcedule conflict serializable? If so, what’s its equivalent serial schedule? If not, why? Ans: No. Swapping (a) with (1) is a R/W conflict, and swapping (a) with (2) is a W/W conflict. Not equivalent to or

30. 15.30 Conflict Serializability Q: Is the following shcedule conflict serializable? If so, what’s its equivalent serial schedule? If not, why? T1 (1) Read(A) (2) Write(C) T2 (a) Write(A) (b) Read(B) T3 (x) Write(B) (y) Read(S) Ans.: Yes. Equivalent to

31. 15.31 Conflict Serializability Q: Is the following shcedule conflict serializable? If so, what’s its equivalent serial schedule? If not, why? T1 (1) Read(A) (2) Write(S) T2 (a) Write(A) (b) Read(B) T3 (x) Write(B) (y) Read(S) Ans.: NO. All possible serial schedules are not conflict equivalent.......

32. 15.32 Conflict Serializability Testing: too expensive to test a schedule by swapping operations (usually schedules are big!) Alternative: “Precedence Graphs” * vertices = Xactions * edges = conflicts between Xactions E.g.: Ti  Tj if: (1) Ti, Tj have a conflicting operation, and (2) Ti executed its operation in conflict first

33. 15.33 Precedence Graph An example of a “Precedence Graph”: T1 Read(A) T2 Write(A) Read(B) T3 Write(B) Read(S) T1 T2 T3 R/W(A) R/W(B) Q: When is a schedule not conflict serializable?

34. 15.34 Precedence Graph Another example: T1 Read(A) Write(S) T2 Write(A) Read(B) T3 Write(B) Read(S) T1 T2 T3 R/W(A) R/W(B) R/W(S) Not conflict serializable!! Because there is a cycle in the PG, the cycle creates contradiction

35. 15.35 Example Schedule (Schedule B) T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 read(X) read(Y) read(Z) read(V) read(W) read(Y) write(Y) write(Z) read(U) read(Y) write(Y) read(Z) write(Z) read(U) write(U)

36. 15.36 Precedence Graph for Schedule A T3T3 T4T4 T1T1 T2T2 R/W (Y) R/W(Z) R/W(Z), W/W(Z) R/W(y), R/W(Z)

37. 15.37 Test for Conflict Serializability A schedule is conflict serializable if and only if its precedence graph is acyclic. Cycle-detection algorithms exist which take order n 2 time, where n is the number of vertices in the graph. (Better algorithms take order n + e where e is the number of edges.) If precedence graph is acyclic, the serializability order can be obtained by a topological sorting of the graph. For example, a serializability order for Schedule A would be T 5  T 1  T 3  T 2  T 4.

38. 15.38 View Serializability “View Equivalence”: S and S´ are view equivalent if the following three conditions are met: 1.For each data item Q, if transaction T i reads the initial value of Q in schedule S, then transaction T i must, in schedule S´, also read the initial value of Q. 2.For each data item Q, if transaction T i reads the value of Q written by T j in S, it also does in S’ 3.For each data item Q, the transaction (if any) that performs the final write(Q) operation in schedule S must perform the final write(Q) operation in schedule S´. As can be seen, view equivalence is also based purely on reads and writes alone.

39. 15.39 View Serializability (Cont.) A schedule S is view serializable if it is view equivalent to a serial schedule. Example: T1 Read(A) Write(A) T2 Write(A) T3 Write(A) Every view serializable schedule that is not conflict serializable has blind writes. Is this schedule view serializable? conflict serializable? VS: Yes. Equivalent to CS: No. PG has a cycle.

40. 15.40 View Serializability (1) We just showed: conflict serializable view serializable (2) We can also show: view serializable serializable

41. 15.41 Other Notions of Serializability Equivalent to the serial schedule, yet is not conflict equivalent or view equivalent to it. T1 Read(A) A  A -50 Write(A) Read(B) B  B + 50 Write(B) T2 Read(B) B  B - 10 Write(B) Read(A) A  A + 10 Write(A) Determining such equivalence requires analysis of operations other than read and write.

42. 15.42 Transaction Definition in SQL Data manipulation language must include a construct for specifying the set of actions that comprise a transaction. In SQL, a transaction begins implicitly. A transaction in SQL ends by:  Commit work commits current transaction and begins a new one.  Rollback work causes current transaction to abort. Levels of consistency specified by SQL-92:  Serializable — default (more conservative than conflict serializable)  Repeatable read  Read committed -- default for Oracle (higher throughput)  Read uncommitted Oracle  Read Committed (DEFAULT) and Serializable  Alter session set isolation_level = SERIALIZABLE;

43. 15.43 Transactions in SQL Other systems: Serializable — default - can read only committed records - if T is reading or writing X, no other Xaction can change X until T commits - if T is updating a set of records (identified by WHERE clause), no other Xaction can change this set until T commits Weaker versions (non-serializable) levels can also be declared Idea: tradeoff: More concurrency => more overhead to ensure valid schedule. Lower degrees of consistency useful for gathering approximate information about the database, e.g., statistics for query optimizer.