The Gateway to Computer Science Excellence
First time here? Checkout the FAQ!
x
+16 votes
1.6k views

Consider the transactions $T1, T2, \:\text{and} \:T3$ and the schedules $S1 \:\text{and} \:S2$ given below. 

$T1: r1(X); r1(Z); w1(X); w1(Z) $

$T2: r2(Y); r2(Z); w2(Z) $

$T3: r3(Y); r3(X); w3(Y) $

$S1: r1(X); r3(Y); r3(X); r2(Y); r2(Z); w3(Y); w2(Z); r1(Z); w1(X); w1(Z) $

$S2: r1(X); r3(Y); r2(Y); r3(X); r1(Z); r2(Z); w3(Y); w1(X); w2(Z); w1(Z) $

Which one of the following statements about the schedules is TRUE?

  1. Only $S1$ is conflict-serializable.
  2. Only $S2$ is conflict-serializable.
  3. Both $S1$ and $S2$ are conflict-serializable.
  4. Neither $S1$ nor $S2$ is conflict-serializable.
asked in Databases by Veteran (103k points) | 1.6k views

3 Answers

+28 votes
Best answer

     

$S_1$ has no cycle hence, Conflict-Serializable

$S_2$ has cycle hence NOT Conflict-Serializable

Answer is option A.

answered by Boss (30.8k points)
edited by
0
In schedule S1: r1(z), w1(x), w1(z) are not taken into consideration for conflicts.

Is it because they are present at the last and all other operations have happened before them?
+1

@Gupta731

Is it because they are present at the last and all other operations have happened before them?

yes,

+4 votes
In s1 there is no cycle ..serial order of execution for s1 is t2 t3 and t1 in s2 there is cycle in precedence graph so not conflict serializable so ans is a
answered by Boss (31.7k points)
–5 votes

(D) Neither S1 nor S2 is conflict-serializable.

we if draw a dependency graph for both schedule it forms a cyclic graph, so we can say they are no conflict seriallzable.

answered by Active (3.3k points)
+1
S1 is CS.
0
u r wrong....
0
How you conclude that it wrong
Answer:

Related questions



Quick search syntax
tags tag:apple
author user:martin
title title:apple
content content:apple
exclude -tag:apple
force match +apple
views views:100
score score:10
answers answers:2
is accepted isaccepted:true
is closed isclosed:true

40,845 questions
47,506 answers
145,764 comments
62,261 users