Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semantic Atomicity

  • Reference work entry
Encyclopedia of Database Systems

  • 49 Accesses

Definition

Let T be a transaction composed of subtransactions S 0, S 1,...,S n−1. Let C 0, C 1,...,C n−1 be a set of compensating transactions, such that C i compensates for the corresponding S i . T is semantically atomic iff all S i have committed, or for all S i that have committed, C i has also committed. A schedule (or history) ensures semantic atomicity if all transactions are semantically atomic. If T requires compensating transactions, then the resulting database is semantically equivalent to one in which T did not execute at all, but it is not guaranteed to be identical. Typically, two database states are equivalent if they both satisfy all of the database constraints.

Historical Background

Semantic Atomicity is first defined in [6], with the use of countersteps to remove parts of a failed transaction executing in a distributed database environment, without rolling back the entire transaction. The “step” grew in complexity to a subtransaction with the introduction of Sagas [7]...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 2,500.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Recommended Reading

  1. E. (ed.). Ahmed Database transaction models for advanced applications. Data Management Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ammann P., Jajodia S., and Ray I. Ensuring atomicity of multilevel transactions. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Research in Security and Privacy, 1996, pp. 74–84.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Breitbart Y., Deacon A., Schek H.-J., Sheth A., and Weikum G. Merging application-centric and data-centric approaches to support transaction-oriented multi-system workflows. ACM SIGMOD Rec., 22(3):23–30, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Breitbart Y., Garcia-Molina H., and Silberscahtz A. Overview of multidatabase transaction management. VLDB J., 1(2):181–240, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chrysanthis P.K. and Ramamritham K. Synthesis of extended transaction models using ACTA. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 19(3):450–491, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garcia-Molina H. Using semantic knowledge for transaction processing in a distributed database. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 8(2):186–213, June 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Garcia-Molina H. and Salem K. Sagas. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, 1987, pp. 249–259.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gray J., Lorie R., Putzolu G., and Traiger I. Granularity of locks and degrees of consistency in a shared database. In Readings in Database Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, 1998, pp. 94–121.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Korth H.F., Kim W., and Bancilhon F. On long duration CAD transactions. Inf. Sci., 46:73–107, October 1988.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Korth H.F., Levy E., and Silberschatz A. A formal approach of recovery by compensating transactions. In Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 1990, pp. 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Korth H.F. and Speegle G. Formal aspects of concurrency control in long-duration transaction systems using the NT/PV model. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 19(3):492–535, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lynch N., Merritt M., Wiehl W., and Fekete A. Atomic transactions. Data Management Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mohan C., Haderle D., Lindsay B., Pirahesh H., and Schwarz P. ARIES: A transaction recovery method supporting fine-granularity locking and partial rollbacks using write-ahead logging. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 17:94–162, March 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moss J.E.B. Nested Transactions – An Approach to Reliable Distributed Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Puustjarvi J. Using advanced transaction and workflow models in composing web services. In Adv. Comput. Sci. Technol., 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Soparkar N., Levy E., Korth H.F., and Silberschatz A. Adaptive commitment for distributed real-time transactions. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 187–194.1994, In CIKM ’94: Proceedings of the third international conference on Information and knowledge management. New York, NY, USA, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Weikum G. Principles and realization strategies of multilevel transaction management. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 16(1): 132–180, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

    Greg Speegle

Authors
  1. Greg Speegle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, 266 Ferst Drive, 30332-0765, Atlanta, GA, USA

    LING LIU (Professor) (Professor)

  2. Database Research Group David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, N2L 3G1, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    M. TAMER ÖZSU (Professor and Director, University Research Chair) (Professor and Director, University Research Chair)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Speegle, G. (2009). Semantic Atomicity. In: LIU, L., ÖZSU, M.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_720

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation