Global consistency constraints considered harmful for heterogeneous database systems

Argues that heterogeneous databases and serializable schedules are contradictory terms in practice. This implies that mechanisms that guarantee fully serializable schedules are an overkill. Much simpler and unrestricted mechanisms can provide the correctness that is needed in heterogeneous systems. Serializable schedules are desirable because they enforce database consistency constraints. In a multi-computer system there are two types of consistency constraints: local and global. Global constraints are the ones that cause problems, as enforcing them requires synchronization among sites.<<ETX>>

[1]  Henry F. Korth,et al.  Formal model of correctness without serializabilty , 1988, SIGMOD '88.

[2]  Ahmed K. Elmagarmid,et al.  Extending the transaction model to capture more meaning , 1990, SGMD.

[3]  David K. Gifford,et al.  Coordinating Independent Atomic Actions , 1985, COMPCON.

[4]  Johannes Klein,et al.  Coordinating multi-transaction activities , 1990 .

[5]  Ahmed K. Elmagarmid,et al.  The distributed operation language for specifying multi-system applications , 1990, Systems Integration '90. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Systems Integration.

[6]  Ahmed K. Elmagarmid,et al.  Supporting updates in heterogeneous distributed database systems , 1988, Proceedings. Fourth International Conference on Data Engineering.

[7]  Umeshwar Dayal,et al.  Organizing long-running activities with triggers and transactions , 1990, SIGMOD '90.

[8]  Abraham Silberschatz,et al.  Reliable transaction management in a multidatabase system , 1990, SIGMOD '90.

[9]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Achieving high availability in distributed databases , 1987, 1987 IEEE Third International Conference on Data Engineering.

[10]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  Management of interdependent data: specifying dependency and consistency requirements , 1990, [1990] Proceedings. Workshop on the Management of Replicated Data.