Talk:Commitment ordering

2124:

is true!: All these articles are heavily infiltrated with misleading (at least) and even wrong statements. These infitrations obviously have been written by someone who implicitely makes numerous general assumtions that are not generally valid. For example: (1)- all transactions are distributed transactions with different processes that reach a "ready" state before actually committing.(2)- the same term (e.g. 2PL) can be used for a synchronization protocol and the set of histories it generates. This leads to wrong conclusions. (3)- The author seems to have in mind a multidatabase-environment with different synchronization protocols on the global and local level. However, he/she never explicitely says that, so it is never clear which level he/she is currently talking about. All the proposals made in the previous paragraph are completely justified. The last statement is from 2012 - nothing has happened since then. We are in 2014 and the whole topic on synchronization is still infiltrated with many misleading statements. The previously mentioned list of articles should be corrected and large parts should be deleted.

962:

opposite cycles. Such global deadlocks/cycles are not of concern since they overlap with local cycles, which are resolved locally (portions of local cycles generate a global one; to see this, split each global transaction (node) to local subtransactions (its portions confined each to a single database); a directed edge exists between transactions if an edge exists between any respective local subtransactions; a cycle is local if all its edges originate from a cycle among subtransactions of the same database, and global if not; global and local can overlap: a same cycle among transactions can result from several different cycles among subtransactions, and be both local and global). The formal issue is resolved by modifying the definition of a

696:

subject as "single source" (BTW, no other significant CO articles exist). It is definitely multi-(independent) source! It seems that the fact that no other significant articles on CO exist is probably due to the fact that these references quite completely cover the subject. Also, not much published research now on concurrency control (CC) in general. CC is considered by many as "well understood..." Are you an expert in CC to classify this as "insignificant?" For sure not! Look in CiteSeer for the subject, and you'll find. Maybe you complain to them you cannot find by author... Sufficient respected references for CO and Mr Raz exist on the web. Have you done homework?

2169:"In addition, locking based global deadlocks are resolved automatically in a CO based multi-database environment, an important side-benefit (including the special case of a completely SS2PL based environment; a previously unnoticed fact for SS2PL)." To my understanding strict 2 phase locking (the protocol, not the set of histories it generates!) may result in deadlocks. A transaction caught in a deadlock never reaches even the request to commit, so this cannot be treated in a special commitment protocol. So, maybe you can explain this to me. 1367:

needed order of voting, as the condition says! That's it. Getting CO locally can be done in many ways (e.g., SS2PL), and a local generic algorithm is given, which spans the entire CO schedule class and can be combined with every local CC type, since it only checks order of commits, after the transactions are in ready state. The article structure and sections, with table of content, allow you to find any needed part, but a linear, patient reading first helps understanding. It is like a small (concentrated) book on a completely new subject.

2144:, simply do not understand the material: (1) For the atomic transaction model that was used in the literature for decades this is correct. Distributed transactions are defined by different processes that need to commit. For this purpose they first reach the "ready state," explicitly or implicitly. (2) This confusion has been common in the literature, and my papers clarified this issue, though not completely prevented it later in published academic articles by some others. The terminology issue is discussed in the article 1060:

ACID properties. I understand database precedence properties and locking schemes and commitment protocols. I have a degree in math and would understand the math. Instead, I feel like the article reads more like a sales pitch trying to convince readers of the benefits of the protocol without FIRST defining the protocol and how it works. I hope that makes sense: I've read many technical and difficult articles here that were still quite understandable.

250: 106: 81: 498: 173: 152: 607:

large databases that are accessed simultaneously by multiple users to avoid transaction conflicts and loss of data" or something like that, and giving one or two examples like recording sales transactions at large department stores with many registers, or airline reservation and ticketing systems, or something like that. (Assuming I've even understood the principle correctly) :)

50: 21: 843:@Everybody: I hope that someone digs up a reliable third party analysis of CO, so this article may be straightened out in that the main concepts of CO become clearer and that it is pointed out more clearly what the technological advances are that are covered by patent claims. Right now, however, the article doesn't analyze/describe CO but, rather, proposes it. 1632: 618:

reference). This, to make it accessible also to people not fluent in the language of mathematics. However, some mathematical terms like graph, cycle in graph, necessary condition, serializability, etc., could not be eliminated. As such every sentence and every word are important, and have been carefully considered.

1649: 2168:

sorry. I did not realize that there was a response. I simply dont use wikipedia much, and I certaily dont want to be involved in any kind of edit wars. And yes: I don't understand what you are writing, even though I am expert in this area. So you might be able to explain this sentence in the article:

2123:

outrageous? really? I came across this discussion accidentally as I corrected a wrong statement in the article on deadlocks (And yes - definitely wrong - no question). The same wrong statement can be found in this article. Now that I see this list of "infected" articles I had a look on these - and it

961:

Formally, a rare exception exists, not of concern: When all the databases involved with the cycle are SS2PL based, it is possible (rarely) that no vote occurs. In such case no voting deadlock can happen. The highest probability instance of such rare event involves two transactions on two simultaneous

802:

At any case, I remove the wrong tag third time (the last removed by another reader). I do not think it can improve the article, since I do not believe any other source exists to be added. You have the exhaustive list of references, as far as I know, and I have been watching it for sixteen years now.

747:

amendable in that it is hard for a reader to estimate the value of the theory as the article appears like a "singularity" among others of its field. In fact, the addition of other sources (for example publications of third party research testing the theory) would only benefit to the topic. A positive

735:

I accept you are an expert on CO, but please take a minute to reflect on Knowledge in its own right. As widely advertised, Knowledge does not want to be a place for promoting personal views or theories that are new or scarcely known, the most extreme form of which are original research, and so-called

1849:

This article has sentences like "Each not-CO-compliant database system is augmented with a CO component (the Commitment Order Coordinator - COCO) which orders the commitment events for CO compliance, with neither data-access nor any other transaction operation interference. As such CO provides a low

1005:

protocol (separate from the global) is needed for local atomicity before voting for the global. Now some local cycles may translate to local voting-deadlocks for the local protocol, and be resolved either by a local cycle elimination mechanism or automatically by the local atomic commitment protocol

695:

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect: All published references (with external links; articles and patents) have been reviewed independently by expert reviewers. Both journals and conferences are very selective and prestigious. The fact that all publications are by the same author does not categorize the

606:

Well, it definitely looks like a Knowledge article now, so I removed the cleanup tag. I still don't quite understand it, though, it's written at a higher level than I can fully grasp. It might benefit from rewriting the first paragraph to be even more basic; "Commitment ordering is programmed into

1059:

Let me make a random comment here, as an arbitrary but technical user. I *still* don't understand the article. The very first thing it should do is define what commitment ordering is, before launching into why it was an open problem or how wonderful it is as an algorithm / protocol. I understand

916:

All this teaches that editing Knowledge, even for a tag, should be done after thinking and researching it over and over again. Good will to improve, without sufficient knowledge either in the subject, or in the Knowledge definitions, or in both, especially together with stubbornness (3 times!), can

2191:

I think we should just delete this article. As far as I am aware, commitment ordering is not significant. It is not mentioned in any textbooks, and is not mentioned in anything that I have seen. This article is also too difficult for a new reader to understand, and thus does not serve the purposes

1889:

Now that the author Comps is blocked for sockpuppetry, it may be easier to discuss whether there are any secondary sources that establish notability of this topic. If not, let's take it back to AfD, where it may be easier to discuss without his presence. And if we keep it, let's prune it back to

863:

I can agree with you only on one thing: That you have completely misunderstood the article, as well as its references, if you have looked them up. This article is the simplest (without Math notation), that I managed to come with, and still be accurate. However, you are not alone: I found that many

901:

Furthermore, you do not seem to understand the academic review process at all: The prestigious committees of experts that reviewed these articles typically accepted only about 10% of the submissions at that time (i.e., about 90% were rejected). It is very prestigious for a paper to be included in

1366:

The protocol has a distributed part which relies on the local part. First the distributed is described: A certain voting condition is proven to be needed for global serializability. This is the main task. After you understand the condition, you just (trivially) apply it: You locally maintain the

1330:

Regarding the protocol: First, it is not in the very beginning since such a long article has a lead section summarizing the entire article, and then a general background section. Than we dive to business with theoretical part which is a must to prove what the protocol has to do. The protocol is

678:?!). Therefore, this wikipedia article is very close to self-publishing. There are very little references to the work of Mr Raz (for example, CiteSeer produces not even one citation for Yoav Raz), so the topic might even be considered insignificant (which of course does not mean it is wrong). -- 617:

Thank you for your input. This is a technical-mathematical article. It is not an easy reading. An effort has been made to write it completely without mathematical notation and to reduce mathematical terminology without harming accuracy, while capturing the main results about the subject (in the

794:

Commitment ordering is referenced by multiple articles. I even saw a PhD thesis on distributed systems based on CO (95?). Knowledge is not the place to bring "references that reference." An expert in the field knows how to find it. It is a "singularity" in the sense that it is the only general

1372:

I do not agree that the article includes any sales pitch: Most of the claims are proven inside the article (in words, which as mathematician you should know is perfectly OK), and for CO-related that is not proven here (quite little: CO as a necessary condition to global serializability across

1080:

The third sentence in the article reads: "In a CO compliant schedule the chronological order of commitment events of transactions is compatible with the precedence order of the respective transactions". This is a definition at the very beginning of the article, and I wonder how you missed

271: 778:

I do not see the relevance of what you write. CO is the ONLY general solution for autonomous databases. This by itself makes it very important. This is a solution for a problem that has been researched for many years without proper solution. I do not see your point. It is

2228:

has a short blurb about this concept, but the sentence "SS2PL is a special case of a technique called commitment ordering" and "DEC-TR 841" part suggest that it's taken from Knowledge: no one familiar with the subject would call SS2PL "a special case of commitment

945:

has been removed. Though it describes a situation where no vote occurs, this is still a situation of missing votes and a deadlock. It is resolved by two competing mechanisms: 1. local cycle resolution described below, and 2. atomic commitment protocol timeout for

836:) very hard to understand (which, in my opinion, is due to the fact that it is just a very complicated way of saying "one needs to maintain a partial ordering of the updates", but this is not the place for academic dispute). However, having read your statement on 710:

It seems you have put the "single source" tag twice. You have used a new IP, but both point to same network in Germany. I explained it to you shortly the first time in the undo comment. Another user reverted your second time. I hope that this time you understand.

2152:. Be specific with text if you think anything is inaccurate. --- Also please identify yourself to show your credentials, since what you write does not make sense to me. Also please do not make changes here or in related articles before a thorough discussion. 2099:, about "neutrality disputed" has been baseless as well, with no any fact given, no explanation, and no conclusion. This "discussion" was archived in March 2012. The only effect I see is multiple unexplained tags contaminating Knowledge, and damage to the 864:

database professionals do not understand concurrency control theory, while thinking they do. Apparently it is not trivial. I do not know if this gives you any consolation, and I urge you to have a closer look at the subject's principles. E.g., see

1626: 1853:

I am aware that this article survived an AfD. The content may well be notable. As a qualified 'computer programmer' (not that that counts for much), I have to honestly say that I can't tell. It is poorly written. See my first point.

736:

fringe theories. I would not attribute either of the latter to CO and I accept the importance of practicable solutions for concurrency control in distributed environments (I wouldn't have come across the article if I didn't, would I?).

2148:(3) The general assumptions have been clearly explained, and the assumptions for sync are minimal and allow a coherent and logical understanding of the material. Satisfactory for a person that understood the background information in 1525:

ensures that conflicting operations are consistent with the relative order in which their transactions commit, which can enable interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms." (quotation from page

791:. Independent prestigious committees have reviewed multiple articles: VLDB, ACM PODS, IPL, IEEE RIDE, The US Patent office. Each is an independent source. It happened that all these papers have been written by a single person. 950:

transactions with no votes (unlikely to win over local mechanism). Thus this is a different situation from the usual, but not a real exception to the theorem, if we are a little more flexible with the term "voting deadlock."

1444:

This article is a mathematical. No Math formulas but very careful phrasing. Make sure content does not change meaning. Pls do not change text if meaning is unclear to you. In this case please discuss it here. Thanks.

2103:

article. No place for unsupported such tags in Knowledge, and should be urgently removed. Initiators of such discussions should be honest and conclude (in the discussions) that accusations made were unsubstantiated.

840:, I am sure I misconceive CO as well. Why don't you just add a reference to the PhD thesis quoted above. Have you rigorously proven your solution is unique (in the very sense that no other general solution exists)? 1919: 880:

and has no place in the article references just because it references and uses CO, since I do not see it provides any original contribution to the subject of CO itself. Its contribution is in another domain.

1378:

I agree that the article is probably not easy. But this is the best I have managed to do in terms of readability and comprehension since I started it in 2006. I strongly recommend that you read the article

795:

solution. When people understood it they stopped looking further. 16 years have passed since VLDB 92 with several more CO articles published. Not a word about incorrectness of any of the CO claims. Look at

1913: 295: 1916:) spends two pages on the topic. I don't seem to have access to the full text, but this would probably give a good indication of the depth to which this article should discuss the topic. 902:

these journal and conferences after such scrutiny. It means that many experts thought it was both correct and important, to be included in the respective years' issues/conferences...

435: 2096: 1643: 783:

at any case (a Knowledge term: Not published by a credible source before being posted in Knowledge). It is well reviewed and published in academic journal and conferences. It is

352: 290: 31: 1142: 2265: 588:

The tag that you have put in the article is now too vague to provide guidance, and requests the addition of more specific comments, if needed. Please advise. Thank you.

223: 213: 1479:

is increasingly becoming important and increasingly utilized. The following text is a quotation from the deletion discussion of the article which took place recently:

1318: 1291: 1260: 1231: 1204: 1173: 2270: 2095:

This is outrageous. "The Raz infection is spreading" reminds of "The Jews infection" in Nazi slur. No place for such in Knowledge. Similar "discussion" in 2011,

2275: 2040: 189: 2260: 397: 1513:"Not all concurrency control algorithms use locks... Three other techniques are timestamp ordering, serialization graph testing, and commit ordering. 553:. For starters, it needs a single opening paragraph that encapsulates the main concepts, then start with section breaks and the table of contents. 871:"one needs to maintain a partial ordering of the updates" is a completely incorrect statement, and has no meaning within the subject's terminology. 371: 236: 180: 157: 1502: 460: 1707:

Google search was not the main reason (see above), just support. I can be selective as well. Some from High importance in computer science.

1619:

existing methods, with the special capability of providing interoperability to all other methods. Thus no doubt about its high importance.

1061: 755:

Therefore, I think the single source tag should be regarded as a chance for improvements on the article, rather than being a "stain" on CO.

2085:

should be removed. None of the proposed removals add anything not already contained in the proposed links except more puffery by Mr. Raz.

1001:

The situation described can happen only if each local sub-transactions can have more than one process or thread. In this case some local

2105: 847: 763: 679: 343: 1818: 1804: 1749: 1661: 1574: 324: 2050: 1982: 787:

either. It is a well established technique. It is either correct and effective or not, and should be judged by this only. Also

759: 516: 416: 112: 86: 2066: 2027: 508: 1565: 2022: 1846:

This article has paragraphs that start with 'Furthermore' or 'In addition'. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

1789: 381: 262: 61: 2078: 2034: 1992: 837: 645: 532: 391: 305: 1910: 1606: 1351:

comprises enforcing (local) CO in each participating database system by ordering commits of local transactions (see

2197: 2074: 2046: 2012: 1997: 1373:

autonomous databases, and MVCO theory; avoided here due to needed length), explicit references to proofs are given.

426: 188:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2192:

Knowledge. If any expert comes across this and agrees with me. Please reply or feel free to remove this article.

2007: 453: 27: 1850:

overhead, general solution for global serializability (and distributed serializability)". See my first point.

1728: 1422: 1065: 851: 767: 683: 2109: 512: 2234:

Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control and Recovery

1927:

I had considered nominating the article again, but I'd probably still vote "weak keep and rewrite" again. —

1907:

Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control and Recovery

1383:

before this one. It gives all the background, the building blocks, and terminology. I hope this helps. ---

2062: 2058: 1972: 1871: 1822: 1808: 1782: 1753: 1698: 1665: 796: 1517:

assigns each transaction a timestamp and ensures that conflicting operations execute in timestamp order.

2193: 1722: 608: 592: 575: 554: 362: 67: 1002: 2241: 2216: 1716: 1690: 117: 91: 49: 20: 2054: 1977: 1767: 1616: 1602: 1557: 1476: 1352: 652: 582: 2089: 2173: 2157: 2141: 2125: 2100: 1947: 1895: 1793: 1026: 660: 1107: 1492: 2145: 1987: 1800: 1694: 1582: 1571: 1499: 281: 2177: 2129: 1686: 947: 883:

All this said, any professional criticism, finding mistakes and inaccuracies if exist, by a

333: 185: 629:"Random comment" in Nov 19, 2010 has been moved from here to a new section at the bottom -- 2237: 2212: 2149: 1967: 1778: 1740: 1710: 1590: 1545: 1450: 1430: 1403: 1388: 1380: 1296: 1269: 1238: 1209: 1182: 1151: 1086:

In the very first section after the overview section you find the formal definition of CO:

1045: 1011: 988: 974: 922: 907: 892: 865: 808: 716: 701: 634: 526: 2097:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science/Archive_10#User:Comps_.2F_Commitment_ordering

1929: 1561: 1537: 1488: 1464: 407: 249: 1942:

Sounds good. A rewrite to a much smaller article seems appropriate. You up for it?

272:

Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet

2254: 2208: 2153: 1943: 1891: 833: 656: 550: 966:, and excluding this rare type of cycles, which consist of portions of local cycles. 1876: 1868: 1585:'s CO articles for the sections. Both authors are known researchers in this area.-- 877: 1734: 1678: 1857:

This article needs to be changed. It needs to be easily understood. It needs

105: 80: 2245: 2220: 2201: 2181: 2161: 2133: 2113: 1951: 1933: 1899: 1879: 1826: 1817:

One needs good understanding in the area to properly evaluate its importance.

1812: 1757: 1748:

Please change back to High. Basing only on search results you miss the point.

1702: 1669: 1594: 1586: 1549: 1541: 1454: 1446: 1434: 1426: 1407: 1399: 1392: 1384: 1069: 1049: 1041: 1015: 1007: 992: 984: 978: 970: 926: 918: 911: 903: 896: 888: 855: 829: 812: 804: 771: 720: 712: 705: 697: 687: 675: 664: 638: 630: 622: 619: 611: 600: 597: 568: 565: 557: 522: 748:

example of an article addressing a relatively new technology is, for example

549:

I don't know about the topic but this article needs a severe cleanup per the

507:

to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include

2236:

is pre-Knowledge and also seems reliable. It's a pretty dense book, though.

749: 314: 2211:. I also think this article should either be deleted or reduced to a stub. 1964:

A search finds what appears to be Mr. Raz repeating the content here into:

172: 151: 2070: 2002: 1682: 1581:: One starts in page 102 and the other in page 700. The book references 1540:

is a known researcher and authority in database concurrency control. --

1521:

tracks conflicts and ensures that the serialization graph is acyclic.

1331:

trivial, but just describing it will have you wonder "how come, why?".

1336:

The protocol is highlighted in a paragraph at the end of the section

1922:

has a short blurb that could further help to establish notability.

581:

I believe your specific comments for the cleanup of the article

1605:

theory. It has enjoys increasing utilization and interest (see

492: 390:

Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see

43: 15: 2082: 2017: 564:

Pls check last cleanup and further advise if needed. Thnx.

1487:"1. the following quotations on CO appear in a 2009 book: 1799:

It clearly explains the huge success of its special case

505:

contributor may be personally or professionally connected

1529:"Commit ordering is presented in Raz (1992)." (page 360) 1055:

Random comment - Copied from above to this new section

1839:

This is an academic paper, not an encyclopedia entry.

1615:

The first quotation specifies it as one of the major

1299: 1272: 1241: 1212: 1185: 1154: 1110: 1861:

editors to rewrite it so that it can be understood.

646:

Talk:Global serializability#Are the experts experts?

184:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 674:This article only has one source, namely Mr Raz (= 2081:should be removed; and the entry for databases in 1601:Commitment ordering is a central element today in 1423:Knowledge:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing 1398:Text here copied from above to this new section -- 1312: 1285: 1266:(CO) property, if for every two such transactions 1254: 1225: 1198: 1167: 1136: 832:(Mr Raz?): your article is (as also recognized by 296:Computer science articles needing expert attention 1905:Gerhard Weikum & Gottfried Vossen (2002). 1677:Looking at google counts for mid-class articles 1421:The article uses Parenthetical referencing. See 1027:User talk:Jwoodger#Commitment ordering questions 115:, a project which is currently considered to be 2077:should be simply deleted; the entry for Raz in 1475:. No justification exists to this change since 1359:in the theorem above (for global transactions). 878:http://srg.cs.uiuc.edu/Bib/LXiao-PhD.thesis.pdf 799:and its discussion. It may help you understand. 2033:He also considers himself notable personally: 436:WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs 2041:User:Dingo1729/History of commitment ordering 1788:It plays an important and increasing role in 1693:17,800,000. I'll be changing it back to low. 8: 1890:what secondary sources say about the topic. 760:Knowledge:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight 2187:I think we should just delete this article. 353:Computer science articles without infoboxes 291:Computer science articles needing attention 2039:And there's another sock-puppet aborning: 1498:, Morgan Kaufmann (Elsevier), June 2009, 1467:has changed the article's importance from 257:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 231: 146: 75: 1577:, has two section dedicated to and named 1304: 1298: 1277: 1271: 1246: 1240: 1217: 1211: 1190: 1184: 1159: 1153: 1128: 1115: 1109: 585:have been met by 8 September 2006 (UTC). 30:on 15 November 2011 (UTC). The result of 2266:Low-importance Computer science articles 876:The mentioned thesis can be found in 148: 77: 47: 1864:It needs a 'Simple english' approach. 1148:transactions in a schedule, such that 651:for additional discussion relating to 198:Knowledge:WikiProject Computer science 2271:WikiProject Computer science articles 201:Template:WikiProject Computer science 7: 2276:Articles with connected contributors 2232:The coverage of the same subject on 1803:as a distributed solution, and more 1494:Principles of Transaction Processing 1417:inline citation (not footnotes only) 178:This article is within the scope of 111:This article is within the scope of 1843:This article is incomprehensible. 66:It is of interest to the following 2140:It is indeed outrageous, and you, 885:person who understands the subject 372:Timeline of computing 2020–present 14: 2261:C-Class Computer science articles 2053:should be replaced by a link to 1644:"commitment ordering" transaction 1627:"commitment ordering" transaction 1567:Transactional Information Systems 1440:Copy editing: Handle with caution 917:cause unnecessary waste of time. 398:Computing articles needing images 2069:should be replaced by a link to 2061:should be replaced by a link to 1094:Definition - Commitment ordering 496: 248: 171: 150: 104: 79: 48: 19: 2051:Distributed concurrency control 1983:Distributed concurrency control 1556:2. The textbook on transaction 218:This article has been rated as 127:Knowledge:WikiProject Databases 26:This article was nominated for 2207:You can start a discussion on 2162:16:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 2067:Deadlock prevention algorithms 2028:Deadlock prevention algorithms 1960:The Raz infection is spreading 1656:Importance is changed back to 1607:History of commitment ordering 943:The CO voting deadlock theorem 623:17:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 612:11:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 601:12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 130:Template:WikiProject Databases 1: 2023:Software transactional memory 1952:21:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1934:14:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1900:05:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1880:10:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC) 1827:17:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 1813:17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 1792:(multi-core) and distributed 1790:Software transactional memory 1758:16:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 1703:05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 1670:04:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 1595:23:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1550:23:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1408:09:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC) 1393:20:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC) 1070:05:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC) 1050:14:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 983:Comment returned modified. 979:14:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 927:15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 912:14:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 897:19:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 856:09:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 813:23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 772:21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 721:16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 706:16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 688:09:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 639:10:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC) 569:20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 558:18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 452:Tag all relevant articles in 192:and see a list of open tasks. 1455:20:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1435:19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 941:The comment (see below) for 937:Comment removed from article 789:"Single source" is incorrect 743:point of view, your article 461:WikiProject Computer science 237:WikiProject Computer science 181:WikiProject Computer science 2114:14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 2079:List of computer scientists 2035:List of computer scientists 1993:Schedule (computer science) 1779:Distributed serializability 1564:, Gottfried Vossen (2001): 1519:Serialization graph testing 1137:{\displaystyle T_{1},T_{2}} 838:Talk:Global_serializability 392:List of computer scientists 2292: 2075:Locks with ordered sharing 2047:Global concurrency control 2013:Locks with ordered sharing 1998:Global concurrency control 1885:Notability, or back to AfD 1650:"commit order" transaction 1639:Google scholar search for 1633:"commit order" transaction 1413:Parenthetical referencing 224:project's importance scale 2246:09:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC) 2221:07:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2202:03:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2134:12:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC) 2008:Federated database system 1460:Importance - Back to High 1355:below) and enforcing the 1016:16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 993:23:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 762:for further arguments. -- 454:Category:Computer science 230: 217: 204:Computer science articles 166: 99: 74: 2182:13:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 2045:Personally I think that 1729:Floyd-Warshall algorithm 1491:, Eric Newcomer (2009): 1262:). The schedule has the 1075:Let's see if I can help. 997:Comment on the comment: 665:16:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 503:The following Knowledge 456:and sub-categories with 781:NOT "original research" 2063:Global serializability 2059:Global serializability 1973:Global serializability 1783:Global serializability 1425:. Thus why the tag? -- 1314: 1287: 1256: 1227: 1200: 1169: 1138: 797:Global serializability 758:Please take a look at 417:Computer science stubs 56:This article is rated 1723:Inheritance semantics 1629:yields 16,600 results 1315: 1313:{\displaystyle T_{2}} 1288: 1286:{\displaystyle T_{1}} 1257: 1255:{\displaystyle T_{2}} 1228: 1226:{\displaystyle T_{1}} 1201: 1199:{\displaystyle T_{1}} 1170: 1168:{\displaystyle T_{2}} 1139: 954:The removed comment: 887:, is highly welcome. 785:Not a "point of view" 517:neutral point of view 113:WikiProject Databases 1717:Patent visualisation 1691:Concurrent computing 1534:Bold fonts in source 1353:Enforcing CO locally 1297: 1270: 1239: 1210: 1183: 1152: 1108: 509:conflict of interest 235:Things you can help 2055:Concurrency control 1978:Concurrency control 1768:Concurrency control 1762:You ignore what CO 1617:Concurrency control 1603:Concurrency control 1579:commitment ordering 1558:concurrency control 1489:Philip A. Bernstein 1477:Commitment ordering 1349:Global CO algorithm 1338:Enforcing global CO 1264:Commitment ordering 653:Commitment ordering 583:Commitment ordering 2226:Professional NoSQL 2101:Snapshot isolation 1920:Professional NoSQL 1794:Snapshot isolation 1622:Google search for 1515:Timestamp ordering 1310: 1283: 1252: 1223: 1196: 1165: 1134: 593:Thatcher131 (talk) 576:Thatcher131 (talk) 555:Thatcher131 (talk) 133:Databases articles 62:content assessment 2146:Two-phase locking 1988:Two-phase locking 1770:of transactions: 1503:978-1-55860-623-4 1003:atomic commitment 541: 540: 491: 490: 487: 486: 483: 482: 479: 478: 475: 474: 145: 144: 141: 140: 42: 41: 2283: 2194:Jarfuls of Tweed 1874: 1687:Data integration 1319: 1317: 1316: 1311: 1309: 1308: 1292: 1290: 1289: 1284: 1282: 1281: 1261: 1259: 1258: 1253: 1251: 1250: 1232: 1230: 1229: 1224: 1222: 1221: 1205: 1203: 1202: 1197: 1195: 1194: 1174: 1172: 1171: 1166: 1164: 1163: 1143: 1141: 1140: 1135: 1133: 1132: 1120: 1119: 739:However, from a 500: 499: 493: 465: 459: 334:Computer science 263:Article requests 252: 245: 244: 232: 206: 205: 202: 199: 196: 195:Computer science 186:Computer science 175: 168: 167: 162: 158:Computer science 154: 147: 135: 134: 131: 128: 125: 108: 101: 100: 95: 83: 76: 59: 53: 52: 44: 23: 16: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2251: 2250: 2189: 2150:Serializability 1968:Serializability 1962: 1887: 1872: 1841: 1741:Birthday attack 1711:Klee-Minty cube 1635:242,000 results 1523:Commit ordering 1462: 1442: 1419: 1381:Serializability 1357:voting strategy 1300: 1295: 1294: 1293:commits before 1273: 1268: 1267: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1186: 1181: 1180: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1124: 1111: 1106: 1105: 1057: 1033:Citation method 1030: 939: 866:Serializability 672: 649: 551:Manual of style 546: 497: 471: 468: 463: 457: 445:Project-related 440: 421: 402: 376: 357: 338: 319: 300: 276: 203: 200: 197: 194: 193: 160: 132: 129: 126: 123: 122: 89: 60:on Knowledge's 57: 12: 11: 5: 2289: 2287: 2279: 2278: 2273: 2268: 2263: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2230: 2223: 2188: 2185: 2171: 2170: 2165: 2164: 2137: 2136: 2119: 2117: 2116: 2088: 2032: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1937: 1936: 1924: 1923: 1917: 1886: 1883: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1815: 1797: 1786: 1760: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1738: 1732: 1726: 1720: 1714: 1654: 1653: 1647: 1637: 1636: 1630: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1562:Gerhard Weikum 1554: 1553: 1552: 1538:Phil Bernstein 1535: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1527: 1465:User:Ruud Koot 1461: 1458: 1441: 1438: 1418: 1411: 1396: 1395: 1375: 1374: 1369: 1368: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1342: 1341: 1333: 1332: 1326: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1307: 1303: 1280: 1276: 1249: 1245: 1220: 1216: 1193: 1189: 1162: 1158: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1118: 1114: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1088: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1077: 1076: 1062:165.125.160.16 1056: 1053: 1038: 1037: 1036:Assessment tag 1034: 1029: 1023: 1021: 1019: 1018: 968: 967: 938: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 899: 881: 874: 873: 872: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 800: 792: 756: 753: 737: 726: 725: 724: 723: 708: 671: 668: 648: 642: 628: 626: 615: 614: 573: 563: 561: 560: 545: 542: 539: 538: 537: 536: 501: 489: 488: 485: 484: 481: 480: 477: 476: 473: 472: 470: 469: 467: 466: 449: 441: 439: 438: 432: 422: 420: 419: 413: 403: 401: 400: 395: 387: 377: 375: 374: 368: 358: 356: 355: 349: 339: 337: 336: 330: 320: 318: 317: 311: 301: 299: 298: 293: 287: 277: 275: 274: 268: 256: 254: 253: 241: 240: 228: 227: 220:Low-importance 216: 210: 209: 207: 190:the discussion 176: 164: 163: 161:Low‑importance 155: 143: 142: 139: 138: 136: 109: 97: 96: 84: 72: 71: 65: 54: 40: 39: 32:the discussion 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2288: 2277: 2274: 2272: 2269: 2267: 2264: 2262: 2259: 2258: 2256: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2224: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2186: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2167: 2166: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2106:65.96.201.116 2102: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2086: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2043: 2042: 2037: 2036: 2030: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2005: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1984: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1965: 1959: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1926: 1925: 1921: 1918: 1915: 1912: 1911:ScienceDirect 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1884: 1882: 1881: 1878: 1875: 1870: 1865: 1862: 1860: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1844: 1838: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1742: 1739: 1736: 1733: 1730: 1727: 1724: 1721: 1718: 1715: 1712: 1709: 1708: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1651: 1648: 1645: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1634: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1618: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575:1-55860-508-8 1573: 1569: 1568: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1509: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1497: 1496:, 2nd Edition 1495: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1459: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1439: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1416: 1412: 1410: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1377: 1376: 1371: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1305: 1301: 1278: 1274: 1265: 1247: 1243: 1235: 1218: 1214: 1191: 1187: 1178: 1177:in a conflict 1160: 1156: 1147: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1112: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1054: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1028: 1024: 1022: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1004: 1000: 999: 998: 995: 994: 990: 986: 981: 980: 976: 972: 965: 960: 957: 956: 955: 952: 949: 944: 936: 928: 924: 920: 915: 914: 913: 909: 905: 900: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 879: 875: 870: 869: 867: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 848:85.178.55.100 844: 841: 839: 835: 834:User:JCLately 831: 814: 810: 806: 801: 798: 793: 790: 786: 782: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 769: 765: 764:85.178.30.168 761: 757: 754: 751: 746: 742: 741:merely formal 738: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 722: 718: 714: 709: 707: 703: 699: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 685: 681: 680:85.178.29.119 677: 670:Single Source 669: 667: 666: 662: 658: 654: 647: 643: 641: 640: 636: 632: 625: 624: 621: 613: 610: 605: 604: 603: 602: 599: 595: 594: 589: 586: 584: 579: 577: 571: 570: 567: 559: 556: 552: 548: 547: 543: 534: 531: 528: 524: 521: 520: 518: 514: 513:autobiography 510: 506: 502: 495: 494: 462: 455: 451: 450: 448: 446: 442: 437: 434: 433: 431: 429: 428: 423: 418: 415: 414: 412: 410: 409: 404: 399: 396: 393: 389: 388: 386: 384: 383: 378: 373: 370: 369: 367: 365: 364: 359: 354: 351: 350: 348: 346: 345: 340: 335: 332: 331: 329: 327: 326: 321: 316: 313: 312: 310: 308: 307: 302: 297: 294: 292: 289: 288: 286: 284: 283: 278: 273: 270: 269: 267: 265: 264: 259: 258: 255: 251: 247: 246: 243: 242: 238: 234: 233: 229: 225: 221: 215: 212: 211: 208: 191: 187: 183: 182: 177: 174: 170: 169: 165: 159: 156: 153: 149: 137: 120: 119: 114: 110: 107: 103: 102: 98: 93: 88: 85: 82: 78: 73: 69: 63: 55: 51: 46: 45: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2233: 2225: 2190: 2172: 2118: 2087: 2044: 2038: 2031: 2026: 2021: 2016: 2011: 2006: 2001: 1996: 1991: 1986: 1981: 1976: 1971: 1966: 1963: 1928: 1914:Google Books 1906: 1888: 1866: 1863: 1858: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1819:94.230.86.34 1805:94.230.86.34 1774: 1763: 1750:94.230.86.34 1695:Stuartyeates 1689:33,200,000, 1681:13,100,000, 1662:94.230.86.34 1657: 1655: 1638: 1621: 1614: 1578: 1570:, Elsevier, 1566: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1507: 1493: 1472: 1468: 1463: 1443: 1420: 1414: 1397: 1356: 1348: 1337: 1325: 1263: 1233: 1176: 1145: 1093: 1058: 1039: 1020: 996: 982: 969: 964:global cycle 963: 958: 953: 942: 940: 884: 845: 842: 827: 788: 784: 780: 744: 740: 673: 650: 627: 616: 596: 590: 587: 580: 572: 562: 529: 504: 444: 443: 427:Unreferenced 425: 424: 406: 405: 380: 379: 361: 360: 342: 341: 323: 322: 304: 303: 280: 279: 261: 260: 219: 179: 116: 68:WikiProjects 35: 2142:User:JohnTB 1735:PCP theorem 1679:C Sharp 3.0 1652:873 results 1006:(racing). 846:So long, -- 609:Thatcher131 544:Cleanup tag 2255:Categories 2238:PetraMagna 2229:ordering". 2213:PetraMagna 1646:99 results 1508:Quotations 948:registered 830:User:Comps 676:User:Comps 1685:354,000, 1146:committed 750:MapReduce 315:Computing 124:Databases 87:Databases 2154:Yoav Raz 2071:Deadlock 2003:Deadlock 1944:Dicklyon 1892:Dicklyon 1867:Cheers, 1683:CiteSeer 1583:Yoav Raz 1320:commits. 1234:precedes 959:Comment: 657:JCLately 533:contribs 363:Maintain 306:Copyedit 118:inactive 92:inactive 28:deletion 1775:crucial 1144:be two 344:Infobox 282:Cleanup 222:on the 58:C-class 2209:WP:AFD 2174:JohnTB 2126:JohnTB 1773:It is 1743:55,000 1737:46,200 1731:31,300 1725:23,700 515:, and 325:Expand 64:scale. 1869:Colon 1859:other 1801:SS2PL 1587:Comps 1542:Comps 1447:Comps 1427:Comps 1400:Comps 1385:Comps 1179:with 1042:Comps 1008:Comps 985:Comps 971:Comps 919:Comps 904:Comps 889:Comps 805:Comps 713:Comps 698:Comps 631:Comps 620:Comps 598:Comps 566:Comps 523:Comps 408:Stubs 382:Photo 239:with: 2242:talk 2217:talk 2198:talk 2178:talk 2158:talk 2130:talk 2110:talk 2090:Ivan 2049:and 1948:talk 1930:Ruud 1896:talk 1823:talk 1809:talk 1781:and 1764:does 1754:talk 1719:4130 1713:6340 1699:talk 1666:talk 1658:high 1591:talk 1572:ISBN 1546:talk 1526:145) 1500:ISBN 1469:High 1451:talk 1431:talk 1404:talk 1389:talk 1347:The 1104:Let 1066:talk 1046:talk 1040:-- 1025:See 1012:talk 989:talk 975:talk 923:talk 908:talk 893:talk 852:talk 809:talk 768:talk 717:talk 702:talk 684:talk 661:talk 655:. - 644:See 635:talk 591:CC: 527:talk 36:keep 34:was 1877:Tom 1777:to 1766:in 1609:)." 1473:low 1471:to 1175:is 1081:it. 574:Hi 519:. 214:Low 2257:: 2244:) 2219:) 2200:) 2180:) 2160:) 2132:) 2112:) 2083:VO 2073:; 2065:; 2057:; 2018:VO 1950:) 1898:) 1873:el 1825:) 1811:) 1756:) 1701:) 1668:) 1660:. 1593:) 1560:: 1548:) 1510:: 1453:) 1445:-- 1433:) 1415:is 1406:) 1391:) 1068:) 1048:) 1014:) 991:) 977:) 925:) 910:) 895:) 868:. 854:) 811:) 770:) 745:is 719:) 704:) 686:) 663:) 637:) 578:, 511:, 464:}} 458:{{ 2240:( 2215:( 2196:( 2176:( 2156:( 2128:( 2108:( 1946:( 1909:( 1894:( 1821:( 1807:( 1796:. 1785:. 1752:( 1697:( 1664:( 1589:( 1544:( 1449:( 1429:( 1402:( 1387:( 1340:: 1306:2 1302:T 1279:1 1275:T 1248:2 1244:T 1219:1 1215:T 1206:( 1192:1 1188:T 1161:2 1157:T 1130:2 1126:T 1122:, 1117:1 1113:T 1064:( 1044:( 1010:( 987:( 973:( 921:( 906:( 891:( 850:( 828:@ 807:( 766:( 752:. 715:( 700:( 682:( 659:( 633:( 535:) 530:· 525:( 447:: 430:: 411:: 394:) 385:: 366:: 347:: 328:: 309:: 285:: 266:: 226:. 121:. 94:) 90:( 70:: 38:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index