In database theory, what is the difference between \"conflict serializable\" and \"conflict equivalent\"?
My textbook has a section on conflict serializable but glosses
Conflict in DBMS can be defined as two or more different transactions accessing the same variable and atleast one of them is a write operation.
For example:
T1: Read(X)
T2: Read (X)
In this case there's no conflict because both transactions are performing just read operations.
But in the following case:
T1: Read(X)
T2: Write(X)
there's a conflict.
Lets say we have a schedule S
, and we can reorder the instructions in them. and create 2 more schedules S1
and S2
.
Conflict equivalent: Refers to the schedules S1
and S2
where they maintain the ordering of the conflicting instructions in both of the schedules. For example, if T1
has to read X
before T2
writes X
in S1
, then it should be the same in S2
also. (Ordering should be maintained only for the conflicting operations).
Conflict Serializability: S
is said to be conflict serializable if it is conflict equivalent to a serial schedule (i.e., where the transactions are executed one after the other).