Concurrency management is a challenge in distributed database systems, as it is in any distributed system. Is 2PL (two-phase locking) necessary if there are no duplicated fragments? Explain.

Give instances of each of the three basic situations in which concurrency might happen.

Give instances of each of the three basic situations in which concurrency might happen.

Consider, for instance, the database management system that is used by an airline; such a system often has snapshot isolation as one of its many capabilities. I was hoping that you could provide me an example of a non-serializable execution that the airline is ready to endure in order to get better performance as a whole. If you could, that would be much appreciated.

Consider the idea of "snapshot isolation" in the context of creating a database for an airline. Should airlines, if they can increase their overall performance, go with a strategy that doesn't lend itself to serialization?

What are the benefits of "transaction pooling" in high-concurrency systems?

Distributed database systems, like other distributed systems, have an issue with concurrency management, which is similar to the problem that other distributed systems have. Considering that pieces are not duplicated, is it required to impose concurrency management methods such as 2PL (Two-phase locking) on a system? Explain.

Is it possible for a single single-threaded process to become blocked in a state of deadlock, in your opinion? Could you provide further details or expand upon your response in the subsequent sentence?

Consider starting with a database that an airline uses that implements "snapshot isolation" as an initial data set for this illustration. What if a non-serializable execution improved the airline's performance in the aggregate instead of increasing it?

Take a "snapshot isolation" as an example for a database used by an airline. Is the decision to go with a method that cannot be serialized justified in the event that airlines manage to improve their overall performance?