Introduction to Databases

Document Sample
Introduction to Databases Powered By Docstoc
					Transaction
Management
Dale-Marie Wilson, Ph.D.
           Transaction Support
    Transaction
      Action, or series of actions, carried out by user or
      application, which reads or updates contents of
      database.
   Logical unit of work
   Application program - series of transactions with
    non-database processing in between
   Transforms database from one consistent state
    to another
       Consistency may be violated during transaction
Transaction Example
           Transaction Support

   Two possible outcomes:
       Success - transaction commits and database
        reaches new consistent state
       Failure - transaction aborts, and database
        restored to consistent state before transaction
        started
         • Referred to as rolled back or undone transaction
 Committed transaction cannot be aborted
 Aborted transaction that is rolled back
  can be restarted later
State Transition Diagram for
Transaction
          Properties of Transaction
   Basic (ACID) properties:

Atomicity       „All or nothing‟ property – transaction is an
   indivisible unit performed in entirety or not at all
Consistency Must transform database from one consistent
   state to another
Isolation       Partial effects of incomplete transactions should
   not be visible to other transactions
Durability      Effects of a committed transaction are
   permanent and must not be lost because of later failure
DBMS Transaction
Subsystem
     Concurrency Control

Process of managing simultaneous
  operations on the database without
  having them interfere with one another
 Prevents interference when two or more
  users access database simultaneously
  and at least one updates data
 Interleaving of operations may produce
  incorrect results
        Need for Concurrency
        Control
   Potential concurrency problems:
       Lost update problem
       Uncommitted dependency problem
       Inconsistent analysis problem
        Lost Update Problem

 Successfully completed update
  overridden by another user
 Example:
     T1 withdrawing £10 from an account with
      balx, initially £100
     T2 depositing £100 into same account
     Serially, final balance would be £190
        Lost Update Problem




   Loss of T2‟s update avoided by
    preventing T1 from reading balx until after
    update
         Uncommitted Dependency
         Problem
 Occurs when one transaction can see
  intermediate results of another transaction
  before it has committed
 Example:
     T4 updates balx to £200 but it aborts, so balx
      should be back at original value of £100
     T3 has read new value of balx (£200) and
      uses value as basis of £10 reduction, giving
      a new balance of £190, instead of £90
          Uncommitted Dependency
          Problem




   Problem avoided by preventing T3 from reading
    balx until after T4 commits or aborts
           Inconsistent Analysis
           Problem
   Occurs when transaction reads several values
    but 2nd transaction updates some of them during
    execution of first
   Aka dirty read or unrepeatable read
   Example:
       T6 is totaling balances of account x (£100),
        account y (£50), and account z (£25).
       Meantime, T5 has transferred £10 from balx to balz,
        so T6 now has wrong result (£10 too high).
         Inconsistent Analysis
         Problem




   Problem avoided by preventing T6 from reading
    balx and balz until after T5 completed updates
          Serializability

   Objective of concurrency control protocol
       To schedule transactions to avoid
        interference
   Transactions could be executed serially
       Limits degree of concurrency or
        parallelism in system
   Serializability identifies those executions
    of transactions guaranteed to ensure
    consistency
        Serializability
    Schedule
     Sequence of reads/writes by set of concurrent
     transactions
    Serial Schedule
     Schedule where operations of each transaction
     are executed consecutively without any
     interleaved operations from other transactions
   No guarantee that results of all serial
    executions of a given set of transactions will be
    identical
          Nonserial schedule

   Schedule where operations from set of
    concurrent transactions are interleaved
   Objective of serializability
       To find nonserial schedules that allow
        transactions to execute concurrently without
        interfering with one another
   Objective - to find nonserial schedules that are
    equivalent to some serial schedule
       Called serializable
           Serializability

     In serializability, ordering of read/writes is
      important:
(a)   If two transactions only read data item
      •   No conflict and order not important
(b)   If two transactions either read or write
      completely separate data items
      •   No conflict and order not important
(c) If one transaction writes a data item and
    another reads or writes same data item
         Order of execution important
Conflict Serializability
Example
          Serializability

 Conflict serializable schedule orders
  conflicting operations to achieve serial
  execution
 Under constrained write rule (transaction
  updates data item based on its old value,
  which is first read)
       Precedence graph used to test for
        serializability
           Precedence Graph

   Create:
      node for each transaction
     directed edge Ti  Tj, if Tj reads value of
      item written by TI
     directed edge Ti  Tj, if Tj writes value into
      item after read by Ti
   If precedence graph contains cycle
       Not conflict serializable
      Non-conflict Serializable
      Schedule Example
 T9 is transferring £100 from one account
  with balance balx to another account with
  balance baly
 T10 is increasing balance of these two
  accounts by 10%
 Precedence graph has a cycle and so is
  not serializable
Non-conflict Serializable
Schedule Example
          Recoverability

   Serializability identifies schedules that maintain
    database consistency
       Assumes no failed transactions
   If transaction fails
       Atomicity requires effects of transaction to be
        undone
   Durability states that once transaction commits,
    its changes cannot be undone (without running
    another, compensating, transaction)
       Recoverable Schedule

A schedule where, for each pair of
  transactions Ti and Tj, if Tj reads a data
  item previously written by Ti, then the
  commit operation of Ti precedes the
  commit operation of Tj
          Concurrency Control
          Techniques
   Conservative approaches
       Delay transactions in case they conflict with
        other transactions
   Optimistic methods
       Assume conflict rare and only check for conflicts
        at commit
   Two conservative concurrency control
    techniques:
        Locking
        Timestamping
          Locking

Transaction uses locks to deny access to other
  transactions and so prevent incorrect updates
   Most widely used approach to ensure
    serializability
   Transaction claims shared (read) or exclusive
    (write) lock on data item before read or write
   Lock prevents another transaction from
    modifying item or even reading it, in the case of a
    write lock
         Basic Locking Rules
   If transaction has shared lock on item
      Can read; not update item
   If transaction has exclusive lock on item
      Can read and update item
   More than one transaction can hold shared locks
    simultaneously on same item
      Reads cannot conflict
   Exclusive lock
      Gives transaction exclusive access to that item
   Some systems allow transaction to:
      Upgrade read lock to exclusive lock
      Downgrade exclusive lock to shared lock
         Incorrect Locking Schedule




   For two transactions above, a valid schedule using these
    rules is:
S = {write_lock(T9, balx), read(T9, balx), write(T9, balx), unlock(T9,
   balx), write_lock(T10, balx), read(T10, balx), write(T10, balx),
   unlock(T10, balx), write_lock(T10, baly), read(T10, baly), write(T10,
   baly), unlock(T10, baly), commit(T10), write_lock(T9, baly),
   read(T9, baly), write(T9, baly), unlock(T9, baly), commit(T9) }
            Incorrect Locking Schedule
   If at start, balx = 100, baly = 400, result should be:
       balx = 220, baly = 330, if T9 executes before T10, or
       balx = 210, baly = 340, if T10 executes before T9.

   However, result gives balx = 220 and baly = 340
   S is not a serializable schedule
   Problem:
      Transactions release locks too soon => results in loss of
        total isolation and atomicity
   To guarantee serializability
      Additional protocol concerning positioning of lock and
        unlock operations in every transaction needed
        Two-Phase Locking (2PL)

Transaction follows 2PL protocol if all
  locking operations precede first unlock
  operation in transaction

   Two phases for transaction:
     Growing phase - acquires all locks but
      cannot release any locks
     Shrinking phase - releases locks but
      cannot acquire any new locks
Preventing Lost Update
Problem using 2PL
Preventing Uncommitted
Dependency Problem using
2PL
Preventing Inconsistent
Analysis Problem using 2PL
           Cascading Rollback
   If every transaction in schedule follows
    2PL,
       Schedule is serializable
   Problems occur with interpretation of
    when locks can be released
Cascading Rollback
         Cascading Rollback

   Transactions conform to 2PL
   T14 aborts
   Since T15 dependent on T14, T15 must also be
    rolled back
   Since T16 dependent on T15, T16 must be rolled
    back
   To prevent this with 2PL
       Leave release of all locks until end of transaction
            Concurrency Control with
            Index Structures
   Each page of index treated as data item and 2PL applied
   Problem:
      Indexes frequently accessed => leads to high lock
       contention
   Index traversal:
       Search path starts from root and moves down to leaf nodes
       Search never moves back up tree
       Once lower-level node accessed => higher-level nodes in path will
        not be used again
       Insertion of new index value (key and pointer):
         • If node not full, insertion will not cause changes to higher-level
           nodes
           Concurrency Control with
           Index Structures
   Exclusively lock leaf node
      If insertion to non full node
   Exclusively lock higher-level nodes
       If node full and must split
   Locking strategy:
       For searches, obtain shared locks on nodes starting at root and
        proceeding downwards along required path. Release lock on node
        once lock has been obtained on the child node
       For insertions, obtain exclusive locks on all nodes as descend
        tree to leaf node to be modified (conservative approach)
       Obtain shared locks on all nodes as descend to leaf node to be
        modified, where obtain exclusive lock. If leaf node has to split,
        upgrade shared lock on parent to exclusive lock. If this node also
        has to split, continue to upgrade locks at next higher level
        (optimistic approach)
       Deadlock

   An impasse that may result when two (or
    more) transactions are each waiting for
    locks held by the other to be released
        Deadlock

   To break deadlock: abort one or more of
    transactions
     Deadlock transparent to user
     DBMS restarts transaction(s)
   Three techniques for handling deadlock:
     Timeouts
     Deadlock prevention
     Deadlock detection and recovery
          Timeouts

 Transaction that requests lock will only
  wait for system-defined period of time
 If lock not been granted within period
       Lock request times out
   DBMS assumes transaction deadlocked
    => aborts and automatically restarts the
    transaction
          Deadlock Prevention
   DBMS looks ahead to see if transaction would
    cause deadlock and never allows deadlock to
    occur
   Can order transactions using transaction
    timestamps:
        Wait-Die - only older transaction can wait for
        younger one, otherwise transaction aborted
        (dies) and restarted with same timestamp
       Wound-Wait - only younger transaction can wait
        for older one. If older transaction requests lock
        held by younger one, younger one aborted
        (wounded)
           Deadlock Detection and
           Recovery
   DBMS allows deadlock to occur; recognizes it and breaks it
   Handled by construction of wait-for graph (WFG) showing transaction
    dependencies:
       Create a node for each transaction
       Create edge Ti -> Tj, if Ti waiting to lock item locked by Tj
   Deadlock exists iff WFG contains cycle
   WFG created at regular intervals
        Recovery from Deadlock
        Detection
   Several issues:
     Choice of deadlock victim
     How far to roll transaction back
     Avoiding starvation – same transaction
      always deadlock victim
          Timestamping

   Transactions ordered globally:
       Older transactions, transactions with
        smaller timestamps, get priority in event
        of conflict
 Conflict resolved by rolling back and
  restarting transaction
 No locks => no deadlock
        Timestamping

    Timestamp
      A unique identifier created by DBMS that
      indicates relative starting time of a
      transaction
   Generated:
     Using system clock at start of transaction
     Incrementing logical counter every time
      new transaction starts
           Timestamping

   Read/write proceeds only if last update on that
    data item carried out by older transaction
   Else, transaction requesting read/write restarted
    and given new timestamp
   Timestamps for data items:
       read-timestamp - timestamp of last transaction to
        read item
       write-timestamp - timestamp of last transaction to
        write item
           Timestamping - Read(x)

   Consider transaction T with timestamp ts(T):

ts(T) < write_timestamp(x)

       x already updated by younger (later) transaction
       Any other values of T may be inconsistent
       Transaction must be aborted and restarted with
        new timestamp
      Timestamping - Read(x)

ts(T) < read_timestamp(x)

   x already read by younger transaction
   Roll back transaction and restart using
    later timestamp
          Timestamping - Write(x)

ts(T) < write_timestamp(x)

     x already written by younger transaction
     Write can safely be ignored - ignore
      obsolete write rule
        • T using obsolete value


   Else, operation accepted and executed
Basic Timestamp Ordering
Comparison of methods
         Multiversion Timestamp
         Ordering
   Versioning of data can be used to increase
    concurrency
   Basic timestamp ordering protocol assumes one
    version of data item exists => only one
    transaction can access data item at time
   Allows multiple transactions to read and write
    different versions of same data item
   Ensures each transaction sees consistent set of
    versions for all data items it accesses
          Multiversion Timestamp
          Ordering
   In multiversion concurrency control
       Each write operation creates new version
        of data item while retaining old version
   When transaction attempts to read data
    item
       System selects one version that ensures
        serializability
        Multiversion Timestamp
        Ordering
 Database holds n versions of data item
 Each version has 3 values:
     Value of version xi
     Read_timestamp(xi) – largest timestamp of
      transactions that successfully read xi
     Write_timestamp()      –    timestamp  of
      transaction that created version xi
          Multiversion Timestamp
          Ordering
   Versions can be deleted once no longer
    required
     Find timestamp of oldest transaction
     For any 2 versions xi and xj of data item x
      with write timestamps less than oldest
      timestamp
        • Older version can be deleted
          Optimistic Techniques
   Based on assumption that conflict rare and more efficient
    to let transactions proceed without delays to ensure
    serializability
   At commit, check made to determine whether conflict
    occurred
   If conflict, transaction must be rolled back and restarted
   Potentially allows greater concurrency than traditional
    protocols
   Three phases:
      Read
      Validation
      Write
          Optimistic Techniques -
          Read Phase
    Extends from start until immediately
     before commit

    1.   Transaction reads values from database
    2.   Stores them in local variables
    3.   Updates applied to local copy of data
      Optimistic Techniques -
      Validation Phase
 Follows read phase
 For read-only transaction, checks that
  data read are still current values
 If no interference, transaction committed,
  else aborted and restarted
 For update transaction, checks
  transaction leaves database in consistent
  state, with serializability maintained
        Optimistic Techniques -
        Write Phase
   Follows successful validation phase for
    update transactions

   Updates made to local copy applied to the
    database
          Granularity of Data Items

   Size of data items chosen as unit of protection
    by concurrency control protocol
   Ranging from coarse to fine:
       Entire database
       A file
       A page (or area or database spaced)
       A record
       A field value of a record
        Granularity of Data Items

   Tradeoff:
     Coarser - the lower the degree of
      concurrency
     Finer - more locking information needed to
      be stored
   Best item size depends on types of
    transactions
           Hierarchy of Granularity

   Represent granularity of locks in
    hierarchical structure
     Root node represents entire database
     Level 1s represent files, etc

   When node locked
       All descendants also locked
   DBMS should check hierarchical path
    before granting lock
         Hierarchy of Granularity
   Intention lock
     Used to lock all ancestors of locked node
     Read or written
     Applied top-down, released bottom-up
            Hierarchy of Granularity
   2PL used to ensure serializability
       No lock granted once any node unlocked
       No node locked until parent locked by an intention
        lock
       No node unlocked until all descendants unlocked
Levels of Locking
          Database Recovery

Process of restoring database to a correct
  state in the event of a failure.

   Need for Recovery Control
       Two types of storage: volatile (main memory)
        and nonvolatile
       Volatile storage does not survive system
        crashes
       Stable storage represents information that has
        been replicated in several nonvolatile storage
        media with independent failure modes
          Types of Failures

   System crashes => result in loss of main memory
   Media failures => result in loss of parts of
    secondary storage
   Application software errors
   Natural physical disasters
   Carelessness or unintentional destruction of data
    or facilities
   Sabotage
      Transactions and Recovery

 Transactions represent basic unit of
  recovery
 Recovery manager responsible for
  atomicity and durability
 If failure occurs between commit and
  database buffers being flushed to
  secondary storage then, to ensure
  durability, recovery manager has to redo
  (rollforward) transaction‟s updates
      Transactions and Recovery

 If transaction not committed at failure
  time, recovery manager undoes
  (rollbacks) any effects of that transaction
  for atomicity
 Partial undo - only one transaction to be
  undone
 Global undo - all transactions to be
  undone
       Example




 DBMS starts at time t0, but fails at time tf.
  Assume data for transactions T2 and T3
  have been written to secondary storage
 T1 and T6 have to be undone. In absence of
  any other information, recovery manager
  has to redo T2, T3, T4, and T5
           Recovery Facilities
   DBMS should provide following facilities to assist
    with recovery:
       Backup mechanism
         • Makes periodic backup copies of database
       Logging facilities
         • Keeps track of current state of transactions and database
           changes
       Checkpoint facility
         • Enables updates to database in progress to be made
           permanent
       Recovery manager
         • Allows DBMS to restore database to consistent state
           following failure
          Log File
   Contains information about all updates to database:
      Transaction records
      Checkpoint records
   Often used for other purposes e.g. auditing
   Transaction records contain:
      Transaction identifier
      Type of log record, (transaction start, insert, update, delete,
       abort, commit)
      Identifier of data item affected by database action (insert,
       delete, and update operations)
      Before-image of data item
      After-image of data item
      Log management information
Sample Log File
          Log File

 Log file may be duplexed or triplexed
 Log file sometimes split into two separate
  random-access files
 Potential bottleneck
       Critical in determining overall
        performance
        Checkpointing
    Checkpoint
     Point of synchronization between database and
     log file. All buffers are force-written to secondary
     storage

   Checkpoint record created containing
    identifiers of all active transactions
   When failure occurs, redo all transactions that
    committed since the checkpoint and undo all
    transactions active at time of crash
          Checkpointing




   With checkpoint at time tc, changes made by T2
    and T3 have been written to secondary storage
   Thus:
       only redo T4 and T5
       undo transactions T1 and T6
            Recovery Techniques
   If database damaged:
       Need to restore last backup copy of database
       Reapply updates of committed transactions using log file
   If database inconsistent:
      Need to undo changes that caused inconsistency
      May need to redo some transactions to ensure updates
       reach secondary storage
      Do not need backup, but can restore database using
       before- and after-images in the log file
   Three main recovery techniques:
       Deferred Update
       Immediate Update
       Shadow Paging
         Deferred Updates

 Updates not written to database until
  after transaction has reached its commit
  point
 If transaction fails before commit
       Has not modified database => no
        undoing of changes required
   May be necessary to redo updates of
    committed transactions as their effect
    may not have reached database
           Immediate Update

   Updates applied to database as they occur
   Need to redo updates of committed transactions
    following failure
   May need to undo effects of transactions that
    not yet committed at time of failure
   Essential that log records are written before
    write to database
       Write-ahead log protocol
          Immediate Update

   If no “transaction commit” record in log
       Transaction was active at failure and must
        be undone
   Undo operations performed in reverse
    order in which they were written to log
          Shadow Paging
   Maintain two page tables during life of transaction
      Current page table
      Shadow page table
   At transaction start
      Two pages the same
   Shadow page table never changed thereafter
      Used to restore database in event of failure
   During transaction current page table records all updates to
    database
   When transaction completes
      Current page table becomes shadow page table
           Advanced Transaction
           Models
   Protocols discussed suitable for types of transactions
    characterized by:
      Simple nature of data
         • Integers, short character strings, dates, etc.
      Short duration of transactions
   More advanced database applications characterized by:
      Large designs
      Dynamic designs
         • Changes propagated through all representations
       Far-reaching updates
       Cooperative engineering
         • Several people working in parallel on multiple versions of
           design
          Advanced Transaction
          Models
   May result in transactions of long duration
   Potential problems:
       More susceptible to failure - need to minimize
        amount of work lost
       May access large number of data items -
        concurrency limited if data inaccessible for long
        periods
       Deadlocks more likely
       Cooperation through use of shared data items
        restricted by traditional concurrency protocols
        Advanced Transaction
        Models
   Look at five advanced transaction
    models:
     Nested Transaction Model
     Sagas
     Multi-level Transaction Model
     Dynamic Restructuring
     Workflow Models
         Nested Transaction Model
   Transaction viewed as hierarchy of subtransactions
   Top-level transaction can have number of child
    transactions
   Each child can have nested transactions
   Only leaf-level subtransactions allowed to perform
    database operations
   Transactions commit from bottom upwards
   Transaction abort at one level does not have to affect
    transaction in progress at higher level
          Nested Transaction Model
   Parent allowed to perform its own recovery:
      Retry subtransaction
      If subtransaction non-vital
        • Ignore failure
      Run contingency subtransaction
      Abort
   Updates of committed subtransactions at intermediate
    levels visible only within scope of immediate parents
   Commit of subtransaction conditionally subject to commit
    or abort of its superiors.
   Top-level transactions conform to traditional ACID
    properties of flat transaction
Nested Transaction
Example
          Nested Transactions

   Advantages:
       Modularity
        • Transaction can be decomposed into number
          of subtransactions for purposes of
          concurrency and recovery
     Finer level of granularity for concurrency
      control and recovery
     Intra-transaction parallelism
     Intra-transaction recovery control
           Savepoints

An identifiable point in flat transaction representing
  some partially consistent state.

   Used as restart point for transaction if
    subsequent problem detected
   During execution of transaction
       User establishes savepoint
       User can use savepoint to roll transaction back to
   Unlike nested transactions, savepoints do not
    support any form of intra-transaction parallelism
           Sagas
“A sequence of (flat) transactions that can be interleaved with
  other transactions”.

   DBMS guarantees:
      All transactions in saga are successfully completed or
      Compensating transactions are run to undo partial
       execution
   Saga has one level of nesting
   For every subtransaction defined
      Corresponding compensating transaction that will
       semantically undo subtransaction‟s effect
          Sagas
   Relax property of isolation
       Allows saga to reveal partial results to other
        concurrently executing transactions before it
        completes
   Useful when subtransactions are relatively
    independent and compensating transactions
    can be produced
   May be difficult sometimes to define
    compensating transaction in advance, and
    DBMS may need to interact with user to
    determine compensation
          Dynamic Restructuring

   To address constraints imposed by ACID
    properties of flat transactions:
       split_transaction
       join_transaction
   split-transaction - splits transaction into two
    serializable transactions and divides its actions
    and resources (for example, locked data items)
    between new transactions
   Resulting transactions proceed independently
          Dynamic Restructuring

 Allows partial results of transaction to be
  shared
 Preserves transaction semantics

 Applicable when:
       Possible to generate two transactions that
        are serializable with each other and with all
        other concurrently executing transactions
             Dynamic Restructuring
   Conditions that permit transaction to be split into A and B are:
      AWriteSet  BWriteSet  BWriteLast
         If both A and B write to same object, B‟s write operations must
         follow A‟s write operations
        AReadSet  BWriteSet = 
         A cannot see any results from B
        BReadSet  AWriteSet = ShareSet
         B may see results of A
   Guarantee that A is serialized before B
   If A aborts, B must also abort
   If both BWriteLast and ShareSet are empty, then A and B can be
    serialized in any order and both can be committed independently
           Dynamic Restructuring

join-transaction - performs reverse operation,
   merging ongoing work of two or more
   independent transactions, as though they had
   always been single transaction

   Main advantages of dynamic restructuring are:
       Adaptive recovery
       Reducing isolation
   Covers Chapter 20 up to 20.5

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:7/2/2011
language:English
pages:99