Consider a database with objects X and Y and assume that there are two transactions T1 and T2. Transaction T1 reads objects X and Y and then writes object X. Transaction T2 reads objects X and Y and then writes objects X and Y. 1. Give an example schedule with actions of transactions T1 and T2 on objects X and Y that results in a write-read conflict. 2. Give an example schedule with actions of transactions T1 and T2 on objects X and Y that results in a read-write conflict. 3. Give an example schedule with actions of transactions T1 and T2 on objects X and Y that results in a write-write conflict.

Consider a database with objects X and Y and assume that there are two transactions T1 and T2. Transaction T1 reads objects X and Y and then writes object X. Transaction T2 reads objects X and Y and then writes objects X and Y. 1. Give an example schedule with actions of transactions T1 and T2 on objects X and Y that results in a write-read conflict. 2. Give an example schedule with actions of transactions T1 and T2 on objects X and Y that results in a read-write conflict. 3. Give an example schedule with actions of transactions T1 and T2 on objects X and Y that results in a write-write conflict.

Database System Concepts

7th Edition

ISBN:9780078022159

Author:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Publisher:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Chapter1: Introduction

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1PE

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

6. A system is in a ______ state if there exists a set of transactions such that every transaction in the set is waiting for another transaction in the set. a. Idle b. Waiting c. Deadlock d. Ready
Given the following transaction database from a supermarket: Transaction ID items T1 I1, I2, I3 T2 I2, I3, I4 T3 I4, I5 T4 I1, I2, I4 T5 I1, I2, I3, I5 T6 I1, I2, I3, I4 What is the output of the Apriori algorithm run on the above transaction database with a minimum support of 50 % (i.e. 3 out of 6 transactions)? Calculate the following confidence: {I1, I2} => { I3} {I2} => {I1, I3} {I1, I3} => {I2} Calculate the following lift: {I2} => {I3} {I2} => {I4} {I1, I3} => {I2}
The first rule in the basic timestamping protocol for concurrency control is: If transaction T asks to read the variable P, check for any younger transaction’s write. If WriteTimestamp(P) > TimeStamp(T), then T is late to read (the value of P it needs is already overwritten, will be inconsistent read) Explain why this rule states that the value of P that this transaction needs is already overwritten.
Consider a database system that includes an atomic increment operation, in addition to the read and write operations. Let V be the value of data item X.The operation increment(X) by C sets the value of X to V + C in an atomic step. The value of X is not available to the transaction unless the latter executes a read(X).Assume that increment operations lock the item in increment mode using the compatibility matrix in Figure 18.25.a. Show that, if all transactions lock the data that they access in the corresponding mode, then two-phase locking ensures serializability.b. Show that the inclusion of increment mode locks allows for increasedconcurrency.
Given the following transaction database: Sales ID Items S1 {O, W, C, N, Z} S2 {O, C, K, N, Z} S3 {K, N, W, Z, O} S4 {K, W, Z, O} S5 {C, K, N, Z} S6 {O, K, N} S7 {O, N, W, Z} S8 {K, N, Z} What is the output of the Apriori algorithm run on the Previous transaction database with Support 40% and Confidence 90%? Using Apriori Algorithm for Findi the frequent item sets and association rules.Working steps must be shown.
Consider three transactions: T1, T2, and T3. S: W1(A); R2(A);W3(B); W2(A);W1(A); R2(C); R3(B); R3(A); W3(B); C1;C2;C3 a) Draw the precedence graph for the schedule. Is the schedule conflict- serializable? b) Is the schedule recoverable?
For mutual exclusion with a preemptive scheduler, it is necessary to introduce explicit locks, and machinery that makes requesting processes wait when a lock is unavailable. We considered casting our locks as semaphores, but decided that, compared with monitors, they exert too little structuring discipline on concurrent programs." How do semaphores "exert too little structuring discipline" and how is this remedied by monitors? Construct an example to show how the structuring discipline exerted by monitors could be useful. Please dont post the answer which is already available on website, Also I need the answer for the montior exert on structuring of the program
For mutual exclusion with a preemptive scheduler, it is necessary to introduce explicit locks, and machinery that makes requesting processes wait when a lock is unavailable. We considered casting our locks as semaphores, but decided that, compared with monitors, they exert too little structuring discipline on concurrent programs." How do semaphores "exert too little structuring discipline" and how is this remedied by monitors? Construct an example to show how the structuring discipline exerted by monitors could be useful. Please write the code of the montior remedies for the structuring discipline exerted by monitor
For mutual exclusion with a preemptive scheduler, it is necessary to introduce explicit locks, and machinery that makes requesting processes wait when a lock is unavailable. We considered casting our locks as semaphores, but decided that, compared with monitors, they exert too little structuring discipline on concurrent programs." How do semaphores "exert too little structuring discipline" and how is this remedied by monitors? Construct an example to show how the structuring discipline exerted by monitors could be useful. Please explain in detail with code example for monitors structuring discipline >?
Consider the following 2 transactions: T1: R(A); R(B); B=A+B; W(B) T2: R(B); R(A); A=A+B; W(A) Change T1 and T2 by adding X lock and S lock to satisfy strict two-phase locking. (Please format your answer in the following way: for a simple read on A with S lock, you can write S(A); R(A); unlock(A)) Will the execution of your changed T1 and T2 cause deadlock? If so, please provide a schedule example. You can write the schedule in the table format with columns T1 and T2.
Consider the following two transactions: (SHOW WORK) T13: read(A); read(B); if A = 1 then B := B - 1; write(B). T14: read(B); read(A); if B = 1 then A := A - 1; write(A). Let the consistency requirement be A = 1 or B = 1, with A = 1 and B = 1 as the initial values.a. Show that every serial execution involving these two transactions preserves the consistency of the database.b. Show a concurrent execution of T13 and T14 that produces a nonserializable schedule.c. Is there a concurrent execution of T13 and T14 that produces a serializable schedule?
Sometimes a transaction has to be undone after it has committed because it was erroneously executed—for example, because of erroneous input by a bank teller. a. Give an example to show that using the normal transaction undo mechanism to undo such a transaction could lead to an inconsistent state. b. One way to handle this situation is to bring the whole database to a state prior to the commit of the erroneous transaction (called point-in-time recovery). Transactions that committed later have their effects rolled back with this scheme. Suggest a modification to the recovery algorithm of Section 19.4 to implement point-in-time recovery using database dumps. c. Later nonerroneous transactions can be reexecuted logically, if the updates are available in the form of SQL but cannot be reexecuted using their log records. Why?