GATE CSE 2009 | Transactions and Concurrency Question 27 | Database Management System

GATE CSE 2009

MCQ (Single Correct Answer)

-0.6

Consider two transactions T₁ and T₂ and four schedules S₁, S₂, S₃, S₄ of T₁ and T₂ as given below:

T₁: R₁[ x ] W₁[ x ] W₁[ y ]
T₂: R₂[ x ] R₂[ y ] W₂[ y ]
S₁: R₁[ x ] R₂[ x ] R₂[ y ] W₁[ x ] W₁[ y ] W₂[ y ]
S₂: R₁[ x ] R₂[ x ] R₂[ y ] W₁[ x ] W₂[ y ] W₁[ y ]
S₃: R₁[ x ] W₁[ x ] R₂[ x ] W₁[ y ] R₂[ y ] W₂[ y ]
S₄: R₂[ x ] R₂[ y ] R₁[ x ] W₁[ x ] W₁[ y ] W₂[ y ]

Which of the above schedules are conflict-serializable?

S₁ and S₂

S₂ and S₃

S₃ only

S₄ only

GATE CSE 2009

MCQ (Single Correct Answer)

-0.6

Let R and S be relational schemes such that R = { a, b, c } and S = { c }. Now consider the following queries on the database:

I. $$\pi_{R-S}(r) - \pi_{R-S} \left (\pi_{R-S} (r) \times s - \pi_{R-S,S}(r)\right )$$

II. $$\left\{t \mid t \in \pi_{R-S} (r) \wedge \forall u \in s \left(\exists v \in r \left(u = v[S] \wedge t = v\left[R-S\right]\right )\right )\right\}$$

III.$$\left\{t \mid t \in \pi_{R-S} (r) \wedge \forall v \in r \left(\exists u \in s \left(u = v[S] \wedge t = v\left[R-S\right]\right )\right ) \right\}$$

IV. Select R.a, R.b
    From R, S
    Where R.c = S.c

Which of the above queries are equivalent?

I and II

I and III

II and IV

III and IV

GATE CSE 2008

MCQ (Single Correct Answer)

-0.6

Consider the following three schedules of transactions T₁, T₂ and T₃.
[ Notation: In the following NYO represents the action Y (R for read, W for write) performed by transaction N on object O. ]

(S1) 2RA 2WA 3RC 2WB 3WA 3WC 1RA 1RB 1WA 1WB

(S2) 3RC 2RA 2WA 2WB 3WA 1RA 1RB 1WA 1WB 3WC

(S3) 2RZ 3RC 3WA 2WA 2WB 3WC 1RA 1RB 1WA 1WB

Which of the following statements is TRUE?

S1, S2 and S3 are all conflict equivalent to each other

No two of S1, S2 and S3 are conflict equivalent to each other

S2 is conflict equivalent to S3, but not to S1

S1 is conflict equivalent to S2, but not to S3

GATE CSE 2007

MCQ (Single Correct Answer)

-0.6

Consider the following two transactions: T₁ and T₂.

T₁: read (A);                  T₂: read (B);
    read (B);                      read (A);
    if A = 0 then B ← B + 1;       if B ≠ 0 then A ← A - 1;
    write (B);                     write (A);

Which of the following schemes, using shared and exclusive locks, satisfy the requirements for strict two phase locking for the above transactions?

S1 : lockS(A); 	        S2 : lockS(B);
     read (A);               read (B);
     lockS(B);               lockS(A);
     read (B);               read (A);
     if A = 0                if B ≠ 0
     then B ← B + 1;        then A ← A - 1;
     write (B);              write (A);
     commit;                 commit;
     unlock (A);             unlock (B);
     unlock (B);             unlock (A);

S1 : lockX(A);          S2 : lockX(B);
     read (A);               read (B);
     lockX(B);               lockX(A);
     read (B);               read (A);
     if A = 0                if B ≠ 0
     then B ← B + 1;        then A ← A - 1;
     write (B);              write (A);
     unlock (A);             unlock (A);
     commit;                 commit;
     unlock (B);             unlock (A);

S1 : lockS(A);           S2 : lockS(B);
     read (A);                read (B);
     lockX(B);                lockX(A);
     read (B);                read (A);
     if A = 0                 if B ≠ 0
     then B ← B + 1;         then A ← A - 1;
     write (B);               write (A);
     unlock (A);              unlock (B);
     commit;                  commit;
     unlock (B);              unlock (A);

S1 : lockS(A);           S2 : lockS(B);
     read (A);                read (B);
     lockX(B);                lockX(A);
     read (B);                read (A);
     if A = 0                 if B ≠ 0
    then B ← B + 1;        then A ← A - 1;
     write (B);               write (A);                                                                                                     
     unlock (A);              unlock (A);
     unlock (B);              unlock (B);
     commit;                  commit;

PREVIOUS NEXT