• Publication
  • 2000
  • Issue No. 5 - May
  • Abstract - Is a Bird in the Hand Worth More than Two in the Bush? Limitations of Priority Cognizance in Conflict Resolution for Firm Real-Time Database Systems
 This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Is a Bird in the Hand Worth More than Two in the Bush? Limitations of Priority Cognizance in Conflict Resolution for Firm Real-Time Database Systems
May 2000 (vol. 49 no. 5)
pp. 482-502

Abstract—After a “boom” period from the late 80s to the early 90s, there appears to have been a reduction in the amount of work published on Concurrency Control (CC) in real-time database systems (RTDBS) in general and firm RTDBS in particular. This may be because existing paradigms (e.g., Optimistic CC) have been pushed to their limits and it is difficult to extract additional meaningful performance. One of the last unresolved bastions of real-time CC is the successful incorporation of priority cognizance. Researchers have speculated that priority cognizant optimistic concurrency control (OCC) algorithms, if designed well, could outperform priority insensitive ones in real-time database systems. So far, however, there is a distinct lack of conclusive proof available on this topic and the priority cognizant OCC algorithms that have appeared so far in the literature cannot claim unilateral superiority over their priority insensitive relatives. We thus surmise that successful incorporation of priority cognizance may lead to an increase in the performance of OCC protocols in firm RTDBSs. Based on this premise, we analyze the issue of priority cognizance and identify a critical condition that must hold for priority cognizant conflict resolution to work. The condition is that, on the average, the conflict sets of validating transactions should have a “large” number of transactions: We call this a bird in hand more than two in the bush phenomenon. Subsequently, we design a smart priority cognizant OCC variant, which we call OCC-APR, and analyze its performance, as well as that of several other concurrency control algorithms across a wide range of resource contention and system loading parameters. Surprisingly, it turns out that it is very difficult for priority cognizance to work as the above mentioned condition does not, usually, hold. We explain why this occurs and conclude that priority cognizance does not appear to be a promising technique to increase real-time CC performance. The contribution of this paper, thus, is to have laid to rest the “priority cognizance” issue with regard to real-time CCMs.

[1] R. Abbott and H. Garcia-Molina, “Scheduling Real-Time Transactions,” ACM SIGMOD RECORD, 1988.
[2] R. Abbott and H. Garcia-Molina,“Scheduling real-time transactions with disk resident data,” Proc. 15th Int’l Conf. Very Large Data Bases, Aug. 1989.
[3] R.K. Abbott and H. Garcia-Molina, “Scheduling Real-Time Transactions: A Performance Evaluation,” ACM Trans. Database Systems, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 513–560, Sept. 1992.
[4] A. Bestavros and S. Braoudakis, “SCC-nS: A Family of Speculative Concurrency Control Algorithms for Real-Time Databases,” Proc. Third Int'l Workshop Responsive Computer Systems, 1993.
[5] A. Datta, S. Mukherjee, P. Konana, I. Viguier, and A. Bajaj, “Multiclass Transaction Scheduling and Overload Management in Firm Real-Time Database Systems,” Information Systems, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 29-54, Mar. 1996.
[6] A. Datta and S.H. Son, “A Study of Concurrency Control in Real-Time Active Database Systems,” submitted for publication, 1995.
[7] P.A. Fishwick, “Simpack: Getting Started with Simulation Programming in C and C++,” Technical Report TR92-022, Computer and Information Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, 1992.
[8] P.A. Fishwick, Simulation Model Design And Execution: Building Digital Worlds. Prentice Hall, 1995.
[9] P.A. Franaszek, J.T. Robinson, and A. Thomasian, “Access Invariance and Its Use in High Contention Environment,” Proc. Seventh Int'l Conf. Data Eng., pp. 47-55, Feb. 1990.
[10] J. Haritsa, M. Livny, and M. Carey, “On Being Optimistic about Real-Time Constraints,” Proc. Ninth ACM Symp. Principles of Database Systems, 1990.
[11] J. Haritsa, M. Carey, and M. Livny, “Dynamic Real-Time Optimistic Concurrency Control,” Proc. 11th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp., pp. 94-103, Dec. 1991.
[12] J.R. Haritsa, M.J. Carey, and M. Livny, “Data Access Scheduling in Firm Real-Time Database Systems,” Proc. IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp., 1992.
[13] D. Hong, S. Chakravarthy, and T. Johnson, “Locking Based Concurrency Control for Integrated Real-Time Database Systems,” Proc. First Int'l Workshop Real-Time Databases: Issues and Applications, Mar. 1996.
[14] J. Huang, J. Stankovic, K. Ramamritham, and D. Towsley, “Experimental Evaluation of Real-Time Concurrency Control Schemes,” Proc. 17th Int'l Conf. Very Large Data Bases, 1991.
[15] J. Huang,J.A. Stankovic,D. Towsley,, and K. Ramamritham,“Experimental evaluation of real-time transaction processing,” Proc. 10th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp. (RTSS), Dec. 1989.
[16] J. Huang and L. Gruenwald, “An Update-Frequency-Valid-Interval Partition Checkpoint Technique for Real-Time Main Memory Databases,” Proc. First Int'l Workshop Real-Time Databases: Issues and Applications, Mar. 1996.
[17] H.T. Kung and J.T. Robinson, "On Optimistic Methods for Concurrency Control," ACM Trans. Database Systems, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 213-226, June 1981.
[18] J. Lee and S.H. Son, “Using Dynamic Adjustment of Serialization Order for Real-Time Database Systems,” Proc. IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp., Dec. 1993.
[19] Y. Lin and S.H. Son, “Concurrency Control in Real-Time Databases by Dynamic Adjustment of Serialization Order,” Proc. IEEE 11th Real-Time Systems Symp., Dec. 1990.
[20] C.L. Liu and J.W. Layland, “Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in a Hard Real-Time Environment,” J. ACM, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 40-61, 1973.
[21] D. Menasce and T. Nakanishi, “Optimistic versus Pessimistic Concurrency Control Mechanisms in Database Management,” Information Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, 1982.
[22] H. Nakazato and K. Lin, “Concurrency Control Algorithms for Real-Time Systems,” Microprocessing and Microprogramming (Proc. Euromicro '93), 1993.
[23] P.E. O'Neil, K. Ramamritham, and C. Pu, “Towards Predictable Transaction Executions in Real-Time Database Systems,” Technical Report CS 92-35, Univ. of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1992.
[24] H. Pang,M. Livny,, and M.J. Carey,“Transaction scheduling in multiclass real-time database systems,” Proc. 13th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp. (RTSS), Dec. 1992.
[25] K. Ramamritham, “Real-Time Databases,” Int'l J. Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 1, no. 1, 1992.
[26] L. Sha, R. Rajkuma, and J.P. Lehoczky, "Priority Inheritance Protocols: An Approach to Real-Time Synchronization," IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 1,175-1,185, Sept. 1990.
[27] L. Sha, R. Rajkumar, S.H. Son, and C.H. Chang, “A Real-Time Locking Protocol,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 40, no. 7, July 1991.
[28] M. Squadrito, L.C. DiPippo, and V.F. Wolfe, “Towards Priority Ceilings in Object-Based Semantic Real-Time Concurrency Control,” Proc. First Int'l Workshop Real-Time Databases: Issues and Applications, Mar. 1996.
[29] P.S. Yu, K-L. Wu, K-J. Lin, and S.H. Son, “On Real-Time Databases: Concurrency Control and Scheduling,” Proc. IEEE, Special Issue on Real-Time Systems, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 140-157, 1994.

Index Terms:
Real-time database systems, concurrency control, performance evaluation.
Citation:
Anindya Datta, Sang H. Son, Vijay Kumar, "Is a Bird in the Hand Worth More than Two in the Bush? Limitations of Priority Cognizance in Conflict Resolution for Firm Real-Time Database Systems," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 482-502, May 2000, doi:10.1109/12.859541
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.