This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
A Case for Non-Two-Phase Locking Protocols that Ensure Atomicity
July 1983 (vol. 9 no. 4)
pp. 535-538
A. Silberschatz, Department of Computer Science, University of Texas
A transaction is atomic if it can be considered, as far as other transactions are concerned, to be indivisible and instantaneous even in the case of failure. An almost universally accepted way to ensure atomicity is to use a strict two-phase locking protocol with a roll-back scheme for recovery in case of deadlock or failure. In this note, we argue that this method is not the most economical way to achieve this end. We develop a Dependency Graph model which is used to analyze the two-phase and non-two-phase locking schemes. It is shown that one way of choosing between the two types of schemes is to estimate the number of rollbacks required. If this number is large, a two-phase scheme is preferable; if small, a non-two-phase scheme should be selected. We demonstrate that with reasonable discipline, the number of such rollbacks can be minimized. Thus, contrary to common practice and belief, non-two-phase protocols can be effectively used in guaranteeing atomicity.
Index Terms:
transactions, Atomicity, concurrency, consistency, database systems, deadlocks, lockdng protocols, rollbacks
Citation:
A. Silberschatz, "A Case for Non-Two-Phase Locking Protocols that Ensure Atomicity," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 535-538, July 1983, doi:10.1109/TSE.1983.235107
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.