blockchain ransactions presentation part 1

Database System Concepts, 5th Ed.
©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use
Chapter 15: Transactions

15.2
Database System Concepts - 5th
Edition, Oct 5, 2006.
 Transaction Concept
 Transaction State
 Concurrent Executions
 Serializability
 Recoverability
 Implementation of Isolation
 Transaction Definition in SQL
 Testing for Serializability.

15.3
Transaction Concept
Transaction Concept
 A transaction is a unit of program execution that accesses and
possibly updates various data items.
 E.g. 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)
 Two main issues to deal with:
 Failures of various kinds, such as hardware failures and system
crashes
 Concurrent execution of multiple transactions

15.4
Example of Fund Transfer
Example of Fund Transfer
 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)
 Atomicity requirement
 if the transaction fails after step 3 and before step 6, money will be “lost”
leading to an inconsistent database state
 Failure could be due to software or hardware
 the system should ensure that updates of a partially executed transaction
are not reflected in the database
 Durability requirement — once the user has been notified that the transaction
has completed (i.e., the transfer of the $50 has taken place), the updates to the
database by the transaction must persist even if there are software or
hardware failures.

15.5
Example of Fund Transfer (Cont.)
 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 requirement in above example:
 the sum of A and B is unchanged by the execution of the transaction
 In general, consistency requirements include
 Explicitly specified integrity constraints such as primary keys and foreign
keys
 Implicit integrity constraints
– e.g. sum of balances of all accounts, minus sum of loan amounts
must equal value of cash-in-hand
 A transaction must see a consistent database.
 During transaction execution the database may be temporarily inconsistent.
 When the transaction completes successfully the database must be
consistent
 Erroneous transaction logic can lead to inconsistency

15.6
 Isolation requirement — if between steps 3 and 6, another
transaction T2 is allowed to access the partially updated database, it
will see an inconsistent database (the sum A + B will be less than it
should be).
T1 T2
1. read(A)
2. A := A – 50
3. write(A)
read(A), read(B), print(A+B)
4. read(B)
5. B := B + 50
6. write(B
 Isolation can be ensured trivially by running transactions serially
 that is, one after the other.
 However, executing multiple transactions concurrently has significant
benefits, as we will see later.

15.7
ACID Properties
ACID Properties
 Atomicity. Either all operations of the transaction are properly reflected
in the database or none are.
 Consistency. Execution of a transaction in isolation preserves the
consistency of the database.
 Isolation. Although multiple transactions may execute concurrently,
each transaction must be unaware of other concurrently executing
transactions. Intermediate transaction results must be hidden from other
concurrently executed transactions.
 That is, for every pair of transactions Ti and Tj, it appears to Ti that
either Tj, finished execution before Ti started, or Tj started execution
after Ti finished.
 Durability. After a transaction completes successfully, the changes it
has made to the database persist, even if there are system failures.
A transaction is a unit of program execution that accesses and possibly
updates various data items.To preserve the integrity of data the database
system must ensure:

15.8
Transaction State
Transaction State
 Active – the initial state; the transaction stays in this state while it is
executing
 Partially committed – after the final statement has been executed.
 Failed -- after the discovery that normal execution can no longer
proceed.
 Aborted – after the transaction has been rolled back and the
database restored to its state prior to the start of the transaction.
Two options after it has been aborted:
 restart the transaction
 can be done only if no internal logical error
 kill the transaction
 Committed – after successful completion.

15.9
Transaction State (Cont.)
Transaction State (Cont.)

15.10
Implementation of Atomicity and
Implementation of Atomicity and
Durability
Durability
 The recovery-management component of a database system
implements the support for atomicity and durability.
 E.g. the shadow-database scheme:
 all updates are made on a shadow copy of the database
 db_pointer is made to point to the updated shadow copy after
– the transaction reaches partial commit and
– all updated pages have been flushed to disk.

15.11
Implementation of Atomicity and Durability
Implementation of Atomicity and Durability
(Cont.)
(Cont.)
 db_pointer always points to the current consistent copy of the database.
 In case transaction fails, old consistent copy pointed to by db_pointer
can be used, and the shadow copy can be deleted.
 The shadow-database scheme:
 Assumes that only one transaction is active at a time.
 Assumes disks do not fail
 Useful for text editors, but
 extremely inefficient for large databases (why?)
– Variant called shadow paging reduces copying of data, but is
still not practical for large databases
 Does not handle concurrent transactions
 Will study better schemes in Chapter 17.

15.12
Concurrent Executions
Concurrent Executions
 Multiple transactions are allowed to run concurrently in the system.
Advantages are:
 increased processor and disk utilization, leading to better
transaction throughput
 E.g. one transaction can be using the CPU while another is
reading from or writing to the disk
 reduced average response time for transactions: short
transactions need not wait behind long ones.
 Concurrency control schemes – mechanisms to achieve isolation
 that is, to control the interaction among the concurrent
transactions in order to prevent them from destroying the
consistency of the database.

15.13
Schedules
Schedules
 Schedule – a sequences of instructions that specify 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.
 A transaction that successfully completes its execution will have a
commit instructions as the last statement
 by default transaction assumed to execute commit instruction as its
last step
 A transaction that fails to successfully complete its execution will have
an abort instruction as the last statement

15.14
Schedule 1
Schedule 1
 Let T1 transfer $50 from A to B, and T2 transfer 10% of the
balance from A to B.
 A serial schedule in which T1 is followed by T2 :

15.15
Schedule 2
Schedule 2
• A serial schedule where T2 is followed by T1

15.16
Schedule 3
Schedule 3
 Let T1 and T2 be the transactions defined previously. The following
schedule is not a serial schedule, but it is equivalent to Schedule 1.
In Schedules 1, 2 and 3, the sum A + B is preserved.

15.17
Schedule 4
Schedule 4
 The following concurrent schedule does not preserve the
value of (A + B ).

15.18
Serializability
Serializability
 Basic Assumption – Each transaction preserves database
consistency.
 Thus serial execution of a set of transactions preserves database
consistency.
 A (possibly concurrent) schedule is serializable if it is equivalent to a
serial schedule. Different forms of schedule equivalence give rise to
the notions of:
1. conflict serializability
2. view serializability
 Simplified view of transactions
 We ignore operations other than read and write instructions
 We assume that transactions may perform arbitrary computations
on data in local buffers in between reads and writes.
 Our simplified schedules consist of only read and write
instructions.

15.19
Conflicting Instructions
Conflicting Instructions
 Instructions li and lj of transactions Ti and Tj respectively, conflict if
and only if there exists some item Q accessed by both li and lj, and at
least one of these instructions wrote Q.
1. li = read(Q), lj = read(Q). li and lj don’t conflict.
2. li = read(Q), lj = write(Q). They conflict.
3. li = write(Q), lj = read(Q). They conflict
4. li = write(Q), lj = write(Q). They conflict
 Intuitively, a conflict between li and lj forces a (logical) temporal order
between them.
 If li and lj are consecutive in a schedule and they do not conflict,
their results would remain the same even if they had been
interchanged in the schedule.

15.20
Conflict Serializability
Conflict Serializability
 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

15.21
Conflict Serializability (Cont.)
 Schedule 3 can be transformed into Schedule 6, a serial
schedule where T2 follows T1, by series of swaps of non-
conflicting instructions.
 Therefore Schedule 3 is conflict serializable.
Schedule 3 Schedule 6

15.22
 Example of a schedule that is not conflict serializable:
 We are unable to swap instructions in the above schedule to obtain
either the serial schedule < T3, T4 >, or the serial schedule < T4, T3 >.

15.23
View Serializability
View Serializability
 Let S and S´ be two schedules with the same set of transactions. S
and S´ are view equivalent if the following three conditions are met,
for each data item Q,
1. If in schedule S, transaction Ti reads the initial value of Q, then in
schedule S’ also transaction Ti must read the initial value of Q.
2. If in schedule S transaction Ti executes read(Q), and that value
was produced by transaction Tj (if any), then in schedule S’ also
transaction Ti must read the value of Q that was produced by the
same write(Q) operation of transaction Tj .
3. The transaction (if any) that performs the final write(Q) operation
in schedule S must also perform the final write(Q) operation in
schedule S’.
As can be seen, view equivalence is also based purely on reads and
writes alone.

15.24
View Serializability (Cont.)
View Serializability (Cont.)
 A schedule S is view serializable if it is view equivalent to a serial
schedule.
 Every conflict serializable schedule is also view serializable.
 Below is a schedule which is view-serializable but not conflict
serializable.
 What serial schedule is above equivalent to?
 Every view serializable schedule that is not conflict serializable has
blind writes.

15.25
Other Notions of Serializability
Other Notions of Serializability
 The schedule below produces same outcome as the serial
schedule < T1, T5 >, yet is not conflict equivalent or view
equivalent to it.
 Determining such equivalence requires analysis of operations
other than read and write.

15.26
Testing for Serializability
Testing for Serializability
 Consider some schedule of a set of transactions T1, T2, ..., Tn
 Precedence graph — a direct graph where the vertices are
the transactions (names).
 We draw an arc from Ti to Tj if the two transaction conflict,
and Ti accessed the data item on which the conflict arose
earlier.
 We may label the arc by the item that was accessed.
 Example 1
x
y

15.27
Example Schedule (Schedule A) + Precedence Graph
Example Schedule (Schedule A) + Precedence Graph
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
read(X)
read(Y)
read(Z)
read(V)
read(W)
read(W)
read(Y)
write(Y)
write(Z)
read(U)
read(Y)
write(Y)
read(Z)
write(Z)
read(U)
write(U)
T3
T4
T1 T2
T5

15.28
Test for Conflict Serializability
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 n2
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.
 This is a linear order consistent with the
partial order of the graph.
 For example, a serializability order for
Schedule A would be
T5  T1  T3  T2  T4
 Are there others?

15.29
Test for View Serializability
Test for View Serializability
 The precedence graph test for conflict serializability cannot be used
directly to test for view serializability.
 Extension to test for view serializability has cost exponential in the
size of the precedence graph.
 The problem of checking if a schedule is view serializable falls in the
class of NP-complete problems.
 Thus existence of an efficient algorithm is extremely unlikely.
 However practical algorithms that just check some sufficient
conditions for view serializability can still be used.

15.30
Recoverable Schedules
Recoverable Schedules
 Recoverable schedule — if a transaction Tj reads a data item
previously written by a transaction Ti , then the commit operation of Ti
appears before the commit operation of Tj.
 The following schedule (Schedule 11) is not recoverable if T9 commits
immediately after the read
 If T8 should abort, T9 would have read (and possibly shown to the user)
an inconsistent database state. Hence, database must ensure that
schedules are recoverable.
Need to address the effect of transaction failures on concurrently
running transactions.

15.31
Cascading Rollbacks
Cascading Rollbacks
 Cascading rollback – a single transaction failure leads to a
series of transaction rollbacks. Consider the following schedule
where none of the transactions has yet committed (so the
schedule is recoverable)
If T10 fails, T11 and T12 must also be rolled back.
 Can lead to the undoing of a significant amount of work

15.32
Cascadeless Schedules
Cascadeless Schedules
 Cascadeless schedules — cascading rollbacks cannot occur; for
each pair of transactions Ti and Tj such that Tj reads a data item
previously written by Ti, the commit operation of Ti appears before the
read operation of Tj.
 Every cascadeless schedule is also recoverable
 It is desirable to restrict the schedules to those that are cascadeless

15.33
Concurrency Control
Concurrency Control
 A database must provide a mechanism that will ensure that all possible
schedules are
 either conflict or view serializable, and
 are recoverable and preferably cascadeless
 A policy in which only one transaction can execute at a time generates
serial schedules, but provides a poor degree of concurrency
 Are serial schedules recoverable/cascadeless?
 Testing a schedule for serializability after it has executed is a little too
late!
 Goal – to develop concurrency control protocols that will assure
serializability.

15.34
Concurrency Control vs. Serializability Tests
Concurrency Control vs. Serializability Tests
 Concurrency-control protocols allow concurrent schedules, but ensure
that the schedules are conflict/view serializable, and are recoverable
and cascadeless .
 Concurrency control protocols generally do not examine the
precedence graph as it is being created
 Instead a protocol imposes a discipline that avoids nonseralizable
schedules.
 We study such protocols in Chapter 16.
 Different concurrency control protocols provide different tradeoffs
between the amount of concurrency they allow and the amount of
overhead that they incur.
 Tests for serializability help us understand why a concurrency control
protocol is correct.

15.35
Weak Levels of Consistency
Weak Levels of Consistency
 Some applications are willing to live with weak levels of consistency,
allowing schedules that are not serializable
 E.g. a read-only transaction that wants to get an approximate total
balance of all accounts
 E.g. database statistics computed for query optimization can be
approximate (why?)
 Such transactions need not be serializable with respect to other
transactions
 Tradeoff accuracy for performance

15.36
Levels of Consistency in SQL-92
Levels of Consistency in SQL-92
 Serializable — default
 Repeatable read — only committed records to be read, repeated
reads of same record must return same value. However, a
transaction may not be serializable – it may find some records
inserted by a transaction but not find others.
 Read committed — only committed records can be read, but
successive reads of record may return different (but committed)
values.
 Read uncommitted — even uncommitted records may be read.
 Lower degrees of consistency useful for gathering approximate
information about the database
 Warning: some database systems do not ensure serializable schedules by default
 E.g. Oracle and PostgreSQL by default support a level of consistency called
snapshot isolation (not part of the SQL standard)

15.37
Transaction Definition in SQL
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.
 In almost all database systems, by default, every SQL statement
also commits implicitly if it executes successfully
 Implicit commit can be turned off by a database directive
 E.g. in JDBC, connection.setAutoCommit(false);

Database System Concepts, 5th Ed.
See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use
End of Chapter
End of Chapter

15.39

15.40

15.41
Schedule 7
Schedule 7

15.42
Precedence Graph for
Precedence Graph for
(a) Schedule 1 and (b) Schedule 2
(a) Schedule 1 and (b) Schedule 2

15.43
Precedence Graph
Precedence Graph

15.44
fig. 15.21
fig. 15.21

15.45
Implementation of Isolation
Implementation of Isolation
 Schedules must be conflict or view serializable, and recoverable,
for the sake of database consistency, and preferably cascadeless.
 A policy in which only one transaction can execute at a time
generates serial schedules, but provides a poor degree of
concurrency.
 Concurrency-control schemes tradeoff between the amount of
concurrency they allow and the amount of overhead that they
incur.
 Some schemes allow only conflict-serializable schedules to be
generated, while others allow view-serializable schedules that are
not conflict-serializable.

15.46
Figure 15.6
Figure 15.6

blockchain ransactions presentation part 1

More Related Content

Similar to blockchain ransactions presentation part 1 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

blockchain ransactions presentation part 1