221 views
0 0 votes

Consider the following interleaved schedule S involving transaction T₁, T₂ on data item X and Y.

S: R₁(X); W₁(X); R₂(X); W₂(X); R₂(Y); W₂(Y); R₁(Y); W₁(Y); C₂, C₁

Where R(X|Y); W(X|Y) represents read and write operations on items X and Y and C₁/₂ are commits of T₁ and T₂ respectively.

 

A. S is neither conflict-, nor view-serializable, non-serializable schedule.

B. S is serializable, but some data values of X and Y leads T₁ and T₂ into an inconsistent state, due to interleaving of transaction.

C. S is not serializable due to dirty read and cycle in the precedence graph.

D. S is serializable and consistent for all data items X and Y.       

 

 

 

D is the correct answer. but why?

Please log in or register to answer this question.

Position:
Show:

Related questions

0 0 votes
1 1 answer
367
367 views
Sarthak_Joshi asked Jul 11, 2025
367 views
The minimum number of relations generated in R, all relations are in 3NF. Then the number of foreign keys is
0 0 votes
2 2 answers
681
681 views
Hirak asked May 4, 2019
681 views
Find the total number of tables required.Ans given was 4, bit how can it be 4? According to me, E1 and E2 will require 2 tables at begining, then for E3 and E1 we need an...
1 1 vote
1 answers 1 answer
1.2k
1.2k views
tishhaagrawal asked Dec 16, 2023
1,177 views
My doubt here is, if NOT EXISTS gets an empty set as the input then every tuple of the table in the outer query must satisfy the condition. Am I right?For example, in the...
3 3 votes
2 2 answers
2.4k
2.4k views
shaurya vardhan asked Dec 4, 2017
2,365 views
In the solution they have merged E1 R4 E4 , E2 R3 E3 R5 , R6 E5.MY DOUBT IS , why cant we only merge R4 E4 instead of E1 R4 E4. since there is total participation on the ...