Chapter-Four

Concurrency Controlling
Techniques
1
 Database Concurrency Control
Concurrency control in a database ensures that multiple transactions can run at the
same time without interfering with each other, maintaining data consistency and
integrity
Transaction Processor is divided into:
A concurrency-control manager, or scheduler, responsible for assuring isolation
of transactions
A logging and recovery manager, responsible for the durability of transactions.
The scheduler (concurrency-control manager) makes sure that even when many
transactions are running at the same time, the final result is the same as if they had run
one by one (in order).
Requests from
transactions
Lock Scheduler
Table
Read and Writes
Buffers 2
Purpose of Concurrency Control
 Purpose of Concurrency Control: for performance reasons a DBMS has to
interleave the action of several transactions. However, this has be done carefully
to ensure that concurrent execution of such transaction is equal to some serial
execution of the same transactions so as :
 To enforce Isolation (through mutual exclusion) among conflicting
transactions.
 To preserve database consistency through consistency preserving execution of
transactions.
A typical scheduler does its work by maintaining locks on certain pieces of the
database. These locks prevent two transactions from accessing the same piece of
data at the same time. Example:
 In concurrent execution environment if T1 conflicts with T2 over a data item
A, then the existing concurrency control decides if T1 or T2 should get the A
and the other transaction is rolled-back or waits. 3
 Cont.
Example:
Bank database: 3 Accounts

A = 500
Account B = 500
Balances
C = 500

Property: A + B + C = 1500

4
 Example
Transaction T2: Transfer
Transaction T1: Transfer
100 from A to C
100 from A to B

Read (A, t) Read (A, s)

t = t - 100 s = s - 100

Write (A, t) Write (A, s)

Read (B, t) Read (C, s)

t = t + 100 s = s + 100

Write (B, t) Write (C, s)

 Transaction T1 Transaction T2 A B C

500 500 500

Read (A, t)
t = t - 100
Read (A, s)
s = s - 100
Write (A, s) 400 500 500

Write (A, t) 400 500 500

Read (B, t)
t = t + 100
Write (B, t) 400 600 500

Read (C, s)
s = s + 100
Write (C, s) 400 600 600

Concurrency problem/inconsistency 400 + 600 + 600 = 1600 6

 Transaction T1 Transaction T2 A B C

500 500 500

Read (A, t)
t = t - 100
Write (A, t) 400 500 500
Read (A, s)
s = s - 100
Write (A, s) 300 500 500
Read (B, t)
t = t + 100
Write (B, t) 300 600 500

Read (C, s)
s = s + 100
Write (C, s) 300 600 600

Scheduled Transaction 300 + 600 + 600 = 1500 7

Concurrency Control Techniques
Basic concurrency control techniques:
 Locking,
 Timestamping
 Optimistic methods
The First two are conservative approaches: delay transactions in case they conflict
with other transactions.
 conservative approaches mean a system prevents conflicts before they happen
by delaying or blocking transactions that might cause problems.
 Goal: Avoid errors early.
Optimistic methods assume conflict is rare and only check for conflicts at
commit.
 The system allows transactions to run freely without delay, assuming there
won't be conflicts.
 It only checks for problems at the end (commit time). 8
Locking

Locking means reserving access to part of the database (like a row or table) so that
only one transaction can use it at a time.
A lock is like a sign on data that says whether it’s free or busy — it controls who can
read or change it at a time.
Generally, a transaction must claim a shared (read) or exclusive (write) lock on a data
item before read or write.
Lock prevents another transaction from modifying item or even reading it, in the case
of a write lock.
 Locking is an operation which secures
• (a) permission to Read
• (b) permission to Write a data item for a transaction.
• Example: Lock (X). Data item X is locked in behalf of the requesting transaction.

 Unlocking is an operation which removes these permissions from the data

item.
• Example: Unlock (X): Data item X is made available to all other transactions.9
Cont.
Two locks modes:
 (a) shared (read) (b) exclusive (write).
 Shared mode: shared lock (X)
 More than one transaction can apply share lock on X for reading its
value but no write lock can be applied on X by any other transaction.
 Exclusive mode: Write lock (X)
• Only one write lock on X can exist at any time and no shared lock can
be applied by any other transaction on X.

Conflict matrix Read Write

Read
Y N
Write

N N
10
Lock Manager: Managing locks on data items.
Lock table: The lock manager uses the lock table to store information
about transactions that hold locks on data items. It records the
transaction ID, the data item being locked, the lock mode (e.g., shared
or exclusive), and a pointer to the next data item locked. One simple
way to implement a lock table is through linked list.
Transaction ID Data item id lock mode Ptr to next data item
T1 X1 Read Next

 Database requires that all transactions should be well-formed. A

transaction is well-formed if:
 It must lock the data item before it reads or writes to it.
 It must not lock an already locked data items and it must not try to unlock a free
data item.

11
Locking - Basic Rules
 It has two operations : Lock_item(X) and unLock_item(X)
 A transaction request access to an item X by first issuing a lock_Item(x)
operation .
 If lock (x)=1, the transaction is forced to wait.
 If lock (X)= 0; it is set to 1 and the transaction is allowed to access x
 When a transaction finished operation on X it issues an Unlock _item
operation which set lock(x) to 0 so that X may be accessed by another
transaction
 If transaction has shared lock on item, can read but not update item.
 If transaction has exclusive lock on item, can both read and update item.
 Reads cannot conflict, so more than one transaction can hold shared locks
simultaneously on same item.
 Exclusive lock gives transaction exclusive access to that item.

12
The following code performs the read operation: read_lock(X):
B: if LOCK (X) = “unlocked” then
begin
LOCK (X)  “read-locked”;
no_of_reads (X)  1;
end
else if LOCK (X)  “read-locked” then
no_of_reads (X)  no_of_reads (X) +1
else begin
wait (until LOCK (X) = “unlocked” and
the lock manager wakes up the transaction);
go to B
end;
The following code performs the write lock operation: write_lock(X):
B: if LOCK (X) = “unlocked” then
LOCK (X)  “write-locked”;
else
wait (until LOCK(X) = “unlocked”
and the lock manager wakes up the transaction);
goto B
13
end;
Lock conversion
 Lock upgrade: existing read lock to write lock
if Ti has a read-lock (X) and Tj has no read-lock (X) (i  j) then
convert read-lock (X) to write-lock (X)
else
force Ti to wait until Tj unlocks X
 Lock downgrade: existing write lock to read lock
Ti has a write-lock (X) (*no transaction can have any lock on X*)
convert write-lock (X) to read-lock (X)
Using such locks in the transaction do not guarantee serializability of schedule
on its own: See the following example:

14
 Example : Incorrect Locking Schedule
T1 T2
Write Lock( X)
Schedule: Read (X)
X=X+100
Write(X)
Unlock(X)
Write Lock( X)
Read (X)
X= X*1.1
Write(X)
Unlock(X)
Write Lock( Y)
Read (Y)
Y= Y*1.1
Write(Y)
Unlock(Y)
Commit
write_lock(Y)
read(Y)
Y= Y-100
write(Y)
unlock(Y) 15
 If at start, X = 100, Y = 400, result should be:

– X = 220, y = 330, if T1 executes before T2, or

– X = 210, Y = 340, if T2 executes before T1

 However, result gives X= 220 and Y = 340.

 S is not a serializable schedule. Why?

Problem is that transactions release locks too soon, resulting in loss of total
isolation and atomicity.
To guarantee serializability, we need an additional protocol concerning the
positioning of lock and unlock operations in every transaction.

16
Two-Phase Locking Techniques: The algorithm

Transaction follows 2PL protocol if all locking operations precede first unlock
operation in the transaction.
Every transaction can be divided into Two Phases: Locking (Growing) &
Unlocking (Shrinking)
 Locking (Growing) Phase:
 A transaction applies locks (read or write) on desired data items one at a time.
 acquires all locks but cannot release any locks.
 Unlocking (Shrinking) Phase:
 A transaction unlocks its locked data items one at a time.
 Releases locks but cannot acquire any new locks.
Requirement:
• For a transaction these two phases must be mutually exclusively, that is, during locking phase
unlocking phase must not start and during unlocking phase locking phase must not begin. 17
Cont.

# locks
held by
Ti

Growing Phase Shrinking Phase

Time

18
 Example
T1 T2 Result
read_lock (Y); read_lock (X); Initial values: X=20; Y=30
read_item (Y);read_item (X); Result of serial execution
unlock (Y); unlock (X); T1 followed by T2
write_lock (X); Write_lock (Y);
X=50, Y=80.
read_item (X);read_item (Y);
X:=X+Y; Y:=X+Y; Result of serial execution
write_item (X); write_item (Y); T2 followed by T1
unlock (X); unlock (Y); X=70, Y=50

19
 T1 T2

read_lock (Y);

read_item (Y); Result

unlock (Y); X=50; Y=50
read_lock (X);
Nonserializable because it
violated two-phase policy.
read_item (X);

unlock (X);

write_lock (Y);

read_item (Y);
Time Y:=X+Y;
write_item (Y);
unlock (Y);
write_lock (X);
read_item (X);
X:=X+Y;
write_item (X);
unlock (X);
20
 T’1 T’2
read_lock (Y); read_lock (X);
read_item (Y);read_item (X); T’1 and T’2 follow two-phase
write_lock (X); Write_lock (Y);policy but they are subject to
unlock (Y); unlock (X); .deadlock, which must be dealt
with
read_item (X);read_item (Y);
X:=X+Y; Y:=X+Y;
write_item (X); write_item (Y);
unlock (X); unlock (Y);

 If every transaction in the schedule follows the 2PL protocol , the

schedule is guaranteed to be serializable
 Limitation
 It may limit the amount of concurrency control that can occur in the
schedule . How?

21
Remark:
2PL protocol guarantees serializability but it doesn’t permit all
the possible serializability schedule
The use of this locking can cause two additional problems
 Deadlock
 starvation

22
Dealing with Deadlock and Starvation
Deadlock: It is a state that may result when two or more transaction are each waiting
for locks held by the other to be released. Example :

T1 T2
read_lock (Y);
read_item (Y);
read_lock (X);
read_item (X);
write_lock (X);
write_lock (Y);
 T1 is in the waiting queue for X which is locked by T2
 T2 is on the waiting queue for Y which is locked by T1
 No transaction can continue until the other transaction completes
 T1 and T2 did follow two-phase policy but they are deadlock
So, the DBMS must either prevent or detect and resolve such deadlock situations 23
Cont.

There are possible solutions : Deadlock prevention, deadlock detection and

avoidance and lock timeouts
i. Deadlock prevention protocol: two possibilities
 The conservative two-phase locking
o A transaction locks all data items it refers to before it begins execution.
o This way of locking prevents deadlock since a transaction never waits for a data
item.
o Limitation : Its restrictions concurrency
 Transaction Timestamp( TS(T) )
o We can prevent deadlocks by giving each transaction a priority and ensuring that
lower priority transactions are not allowed to wait for higher priority transactions
(or vice versa ).
o One way to assign priorities is to give each transaction a timestamp when it
starts up.
o it is a unique identifier given to each transaction based on time in which it is
started. i.e. if T1 starts before T2 , TS(T1)<TS(T2)
o The lower the timestamp, the higher the transaction's priority, that is, the oldest
transaction has the highest priority. 24
If a transaction Ti requests a lock and transaction Tj holds a conflicting lock, the
lock manager can use one of the following two policies: Wait-die & Would-wait

Wait-Die
In the Wait-Die method, each transaction gets a timestamp when it starts. Older transactions have
higher priority.
 If an older transaction tries to get a resource locked by a younger one. It is allowed to wait.
 If a younger transaction tries to get a resource locked by an older one. It is not allowed to wait, so
it is aborted (dies) and restarted later.

T1(ts =10)
wait
wait T2 (ts =20)
wait
T3 (ts =25) 25
Cont.
Wound-wait
If an older transaction wants a resource held by a younger one:
• It wounds (aborts) the younger transaction.
• The younger one is stopped and restarted later.
If a younger transaction wants a resource held by an older one:
• It is allowed to wait.

T1(ts =25)
wait
T2 (ts =20)
wait wait

T3 (ts =10)
26
 Remark:
 Both methods ended by aborting the younger of the two transaction that
may be involved in the deadlock
 Limitation:
 Both techniques may cause some transaction to be aborted and
restarted needlessly
ii. Deadlock Detection and resolution
 In this approach, deadlocks are allowed to happen
 The scheduler maintains a wait-for-graph for detecting cycle.
 When a chain like: Ti waits for Tj waits for Tk waits for Ti or Tj occurs, then
this creates a cycle.
 When the system is in the state of deadlock , some of the transaction should
be aborted by selected (victim) and rolled-back
 This can be done by aborting those transaction: that have made the least work,
the one with the lowest locks, and that have the least # of abortion and so on
 Example:

27
iii.Timeouts
 It uses the period of time that several transaction have been waiting to lock items
 It has lower overhead cost and it is simple
 If the transaction wait for a longer time than the predefined time out period, the
system assume that may be deadlocked and aborted it
Starvation
 Starvation occurs when a particular transaction consistently waits or restarted and
never gets a chance to proceed further while other transaction continue normally
 This may occur , if the waiting method for item locking:
 Gave priority for some transaction over others
 Problem in Victim selection algorithm- it is possible that the same transaction may
consistently be selected as victim and rolled-back .example In Wound-Wait
 Solution
 FIFO
 Allow for transaction that wait for a longer time
 Give higher priority for transaction that have been aborted for many time
28
Timestamp based concurrency control algorithm
Timestamp
 In lock-based concurrency control , conflicting actions of different transactions are
ordered by the order in which locks are obtained.
 But here, Timestamp values are assigned based on time in which the transaction are
submitted to the system using the current date & time of the system
 A monotonically increasing variable (integer) indicating the age of an operation or a
transaction.
 A larger timestamp value indicates a more recent event or operation.
 Timestamp based algorithm uses timestamp to serialize the execution of concurrent
transactions.
 It doesn’t use lock, thus deadlock cannot be occurred
 In the timestamp ordering, conflicting operation in the schedule shouldn’t violate
serializable ordering
 This can be achieved by associating timestamp value (TS) to each database item
which is denoted as follow:
29
Example:
Suppose there are three transactions T1, T2, and T3.
T1 has entered the system at time 0010
T2 has entered the system at 0020
T3 has entered the system at 0030
Priority will be given to transaction T1, then transaction T2 and lastly
Transaction T3.

a) Read_Ts(x): the read timestamp of x – this is the largest time among all the
time stamps of transaction that have successfully read item X
b) Write_TS(X): the largest of all the timestamps of transaction that have
successfully written item X
 The concurrency control algorithm check whether conflict operation violate
the timestamp ordering in the following manner: three options
30
i. Basic Timestamp Ordering

 Transaction T issues a write_item(X) operation:

 If read_TS(X) > TS(T) or if write_TS(X) > TS(T), then a younger transaction has already
read/write the values of the data item x before T had a chance to write X . so, abort and roll-
back T and restarted with a new, larger timestamp.
 Why is with new timestamp?, is there a difference b/n this timestamp protocol and the 2PL
for dead lock prevention?
 If the condition in part (a) does not exist, then execute write_item(X) of T and set
write_TS(X) to TS(T).
 Transaction T issues a read_item(X) operation:
 If write_TS(X) > TS(T), then an younger transaction has already written to the data item,so
abort and roll-back T and reject the operation.
 If write_TS(X)  TS(T), then execute read_item(X) of T and set read_TS(X) to the larger
of TS(T) and the current read_TS(X)
 Limitation: cyclic restart/starvation may occur when a transaction is continuously aborted and
31
restarted
ii. Strict Timestamp Ordering
1. Transaction T issues a write_item(X) operation:
• If TS(T) > read_TS(X), then delay T until the transaction T’ that wrote or read
X has terminated (committed or aborted).
2. Transaction T issues a read_item(X) operation:
• If TS(T) > write_TS(X), then delay T until the transaction T’ that wrote X has
terminated (committed or aborted).
iii. Thomas’s Write Rule : Modification of Basic Time ordering Algo
 A transaction T issue a write_Ietm(X) Operation:
1. If read_TS(X) > TS(T) then abort and roll-back T and reject the operation.
2. If write_TS(X) > TS(T), then just ignore the write operation and continue
execution. This is because the most recent writes counts in case of two consecutive
writes. Example
3. If the conditions given in 1 and 2 above do not occur, then execute write_item(X)
of T and set write_TS(X) to TS(T).

B
A

The Thomas Write Rule relies on the observation that T2's write is never
32
seen by any transaction
Multi-version Concurrency Control Techniques
This approach maintains a number of versions of a data item and allocates the right
version to a read operation of a transaction.
Thus, unlike other mechanisms a read operation in this mechanism is never rejected.
This algorithm uses the concept of view serializability than conflict serializability
Side effect: Significantly more storage (RAM and disk) is required to maintain multiple
versions. To check unlimited growth of versions, a garbage collection is run when some
criteria is satisfied.
Two schemes : based on time stamped ordering & 2PL
i. Multiversion technique based on timestamp ordering
Assume X1, X2, …, Xn are the version of a data item X created by a write operation of
transactions. With each Xi a read_TS (read timestamp) and a write_TS (write
timestamp) are associated.)
read_TS(Xi): The read timestamp of Xi is the largest of all the timestamps of
transactions that have successfully read version Xi.
write_TS(Xi): The write timestamp of Xi that wrote the value of version Xi.
A new version of Xi is created only by a write operation. 33
Cont.
To ensure serializability, the following two rules are used:
 If transaction T issues write_item (X) and version i of X has the highest
write_TS(Xi) of all versions of X that is also less than or equal to TS(T), and
read _TS(Xi) > TS(T), then abort and roll-back T; otherwise create a new
version Xi and read_TS(X) = write_TS(Xi) = TS(T).
 If transaction T issues read_item (X), find the version i of X that has the
highest write_TS(Xi) of all versions of X that is also less than or equal to
TS(T), then return the value of Xi to T, and set the value of read _TS(Xi) to the
largest of TS(T) and the current read_TS(Xi).
Note that: Rule two indicates that read request will never be rejected
ii. Multiversion Two-Phase Locking Using Certify Lock
Allow a transaction T’ to read a data item X while it is written locked by a
conflicting transaction T.
This is accomplished by maintaining two versions of each data item X where one
version must always have been written by some committed transaction.
This means a write operation always creates a new version of X. 34
 Steps
1. X is the committed version of a data item.
2. T creates a second version X’ after obtaining a write lock on X.
3. Other transactions continue to read X.
4. T is ready to commit so it obtains a certify lock on X’.
5. The committed version X becomes X’.
6. T releases it certify lock on X’, which is X now.
Compatibility tables for
Read Write Certify
Read Yes Yes No
Write Yes No No
Certify No No No
read/write locking scheme read/write/certify locking scheme
Note:
 In multiversion 2PL read and write operations from conflicting
transactions can be processed concurrently.
 This improves concurrency but it may delay transaction commit because
of obtaining certify locks on all its writes.
 It avoids cascading abort but like strict two phase locking scheme
35
conflicting transactions may get deadlocked.
Validation (Optimistic) Concurrency Control Schemes

This technique allow transaction to proceed asynchronously and only at the time of
commit, serializability is checked &
transactions are aborted in case of non-serializable schedules.
Good if there is little interference among transaction
It has three phases: Read, Validation , and Write phase
i. Read phase:
 A transaction can read values of committed data items. However, updates are
applied only to local copies (versions) of the data items (in database cache).
ii. Validation phase:
 If the transaction Ti decides that it wants to commit, the DBMS checks whether
the transaction could possibly have conflicted with any other concurrently
executing transaction.
 While one transaction ,Ti, is being validated , no other transaction can be allowed
to commit
 This phase for Ti checks that, for each transaction Tj that is either committed or is
36
in its validation phase, one of the following conditions holds:
Cont.
 Tj completes its write phase before Ti starts its read phase.
 Ti starts its write phase after Tj completes its write phase and the read set of Ti
has no item in common with the write set of Tj
 Both the read_set and write_set of Ti have no items in common with the write_set
of Tj, and Tj completes its read phase before Ti completes its read phase.
When validating Ti, the first condition is checked first for each transaction Tj, since
(1) is the simplest condition to check. If (1) is false then (2) is checked and if (2) is
false then (3 ) is checked.
If none of these conditions holds, the validation fails and Ti is aborted.
iii. Write phase:
 On a successful validation, transactions’ updates are applied to the database;
otherwise, transactions are restarted.
37
Multiple granularity locking

A lockable unit of data defines its granularity

Granularity can be coarse (entire database) or it can be fine (an attribute of a relation).
Example of data item granularity:
 A field of a database record
 A database record
 A disk block/ page
 An entire file
 The entire database
Data item granularity significantly affects concurrency control performance.
Thus, the degree of concurrency is low for coarse granularity and high for fine granularity.
Example:
 A transaction that expects to access most of the pages in a file should probably set a lock on the
entire file , rather than locking individual pages or records
 If a transaction that requires to access relatively few pages of the file , it is better to lock those
pages
 Similarly , if a transaction access several records on a page , it should lock the entire page and if
it access just a few records , it should lock some those records.
This example will hold true , if a lock on the node locks that node and implicitly all its descendants
38
 The following diagram illustrates a hierarchy of granularity from coarse
(database) to fine (record).
Fig: Granularity
hierarchy

 To manage such hierarchy, in addition to read(S) and write(X), three additional locking
modes, called intention lock modes are defined:
 Intention-shared (IS): indicates that a shared lock(s) will be requested on some
descendent node(s).
 Intention-exclusive (IX): indicates that an exclusive lock(s) will be requested on
some descendent node(s).
 Shared-intention-exclusive (SIX): indicates that the current node is locked in shared
mode but an exclusive lock(s) will be requested on some descendent nodes(s).
 If a transaction needs to read an entire file and modify a few of the records in it.
i.e. it needs S lock on a file & IX lock on some of the contained object 39
The set of rules which must be followed for producing serializable
schedule are
1. The lock compatibility must adhere to.
2. The root of the tree must be locked first, in any mode.
3. A node N can be locked by a transaction T in S or IX mode only if
the parent node is already locked by T in either IS or IX mode.
4. A node N can be locked by T in X, IX, or SIX mode only if the
parent of N is already locked by T in either IX or SIX mode.
5. T can lock a node only if it has not unlocked any node (to enforce
2PL policy).
6. T can unlock a node, N, only if none of the children of N are
currently locked by T.

Summery :
Parent Child can be P
locked in locked in
IS IS, S
IX IS, S, IX, X, SIX
S [IS, S] not necessary
SIX X, IX C 40
X none
 To lock a node in S mode, a transaction must first lock all its ancestors
 in IS mode. Thus, if a transaction locks a node in S mode, no other
 transaction can have locked any ancestor in X mode;
 Similarly, if a transaction locks a node in X mode, no other transaction
 can have locked any ancestor in S or X mode.
 These two cases ensures that no other transaction holds a lock on an
 ancestor that conflicts with the requested S or X lock on the node.

These locks are applied using the following compatibility matrix:

Requestor
IS IX S SIX X
IS yes yes yes yes no
IX yes yes no no no
Holder S yes no yes no no
SIX yes no no no no
X no no no no no

 consider the following three example-based the above Fig 40

 T1 wants to update record r111 and r211
 T2 wants to update all records on page p12
 T3 wants to read records r11j and the entire f2 file 41
Multiple Granularity Locking: Lock operation to show a serializable execution
T1 T2 T3
IX(db)
IX(f1)
IX(db)
IS(db)
IS(f1)
IS(p11)
IX(p11)
X(r111)
IX(f1)
X(p12)
S(r11j)
IX(f2)
IX(p21)
X(r211)
Unlock (r211)
Unlock (p21)
Unlock (f2)
S(f2)
unlock(p12)
unlock(f1)
unlock(db)
unlock(r111)
unlock(p11)
unlock(f1)
unlock(db)
unlock (r111j)
unlock (p11)
unlock (f1)
unlock(f2)
unlock(db) 42
End of Chapter-Four…

43