Data consistency: toward a terminological clarification

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21413-9_15Consistency is an inconsistency are ubiquitous term in data engineering. Its relevance to quality is obvious, since consistency is a commonplace dimension of data quality. However, connotations are vague or ambiguous. In this paper, we address semantic consistency, transaction consistency, replication consistency, eventual consistency and the new notion of partial consistency in databases. We characterize their distinguishing properties, and also address their differences, interactions and interdependencies. Partial consistency is an entry door to living with inconsistency, which is an ineludible necessity in the age of big data.Decker and F.D. Muñoz—supported by the Spanish MINECO grant TIN 2012-37719-C03-01.Decker, H.; Muñoz Escoí, FD.; Misra, S. (2015). Data consistency: toward a terminological clarification. En Computational Science and Its Applications -- ICCSA 2015: 15th International Conference, Banff, AB, Canada, June 22-25, 2015, Proceedings, Part V. Springer International Publishing. 206-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21413-9_15S206220Abadi, D.: Consistency tradeoffs in modern distributed database system design: Cap is only part of the story. Computer 45(2), 37–42 (2012)Bailis, P. (2015). http://www.bailis.org/blog/Bailis, P., Ghodsi, A.: Eventual consistency today: limitations, extensions, and beyond. ACM Queue, 11(3) (2013)Balegas, V., Duarte, S., Ferreira, C., Rodrigues, R., Preguica, N., Najafzadeh, M., Shapiro, M.: Putting consistency back into eventual consistency. In: 10th EuroSys. ACM (2015). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2741948.2741972Beeri, C., Bernstein, P., Goodman, N.: A sophisticate’s introduction to database normalization theory. In: VLDB, pp. 113–124 (1978)Berenson, H., Bernstein, P., Gray, J., Melton, J., O’Neil, E., O’Neil, P.: A critique of ansi sql isolation levels. SIGMoD Record 24(2), 1–10 (1995)Bermbach, D., Tai, S.: Eventual consistency: how soon is eventual? In: 6th MW4SOC. ACM (2011)Bernabé-Gisbert, J., Muñoz-Escoí, F.: Supporting multiple isolation levels in replicated environments. Data & Knowledge Engineering 7980, 1–16 (2012)Bernstein, P., Das, S.. Rethinking eventual consistency. In: SIGMOD 2013, pp. 923–928. ACM (2013)Bernstein, P., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley (1987)Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T.: Inconsistency Tolerance. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Bobenrieth, A.: Inconsistencias por qué no? Un estudio filosófico sobre la lógica paraconsistente. Premios Nacionales Colcultura. Tercer Mundo Editores. Magister Thesis, Universidad de los Andes, Santafé de Bogotá, Columbia (1995)Bosneag, A.-M., Brockmeyer, M.: A formal model for eventual consistency semantics. In: PDCS 2002, pp. 204–209. IASTED (2001)Browne, J.: Brewer’s cap theorem (2009). http://www.julianbrowne.com/article/viewer/brewers-cap-theoremCong, G., Fan, W., Geerts, F., Jia, X., Ma, S.: Improving data quality: consistency and accuracy. In: Proc. 33rd VLDB, pp. 315–326. ACM (2007)Dechter, R., van Beek, P.: Local and global relational consistency. Theor. Comput. Sci. 173(1), 283–308 (1997)Decker, H.: Translating advanced integrity checking technology to SQL. In: Doorn, J., Rivero, L. (eds.) Database integrity: challenges and solutions, pp. 203–249. Idea Group (2002)Decker, H.: Historical and computational aspects of paraconsistency in view of the logic foundation of databases. In: Bertossi, L., Katona, G.O.H., Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Semantics in Databases 2001. LNCS, vol. 2582, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Decker, H.: Answers that have integrity. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6834, pp. 54–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: New measures for maintaining the quality of databases. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Misra, S., Nedjah, N., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2012, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 7336, pp. 170–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Decker, H.: A pragmatic approach to model, measure and maintain the quality of information in databases (2012). www.iti.upv.es/~hendrik/papers/ahrc-workshop_quality-of-data.pdf , www.iti.upv.es/~hendrik/papers/ahrc-workshop_quality-of-data_comments.pdf . Slides and comments presented at the Workshop on Information Quality. Univ, Hertfordshire, UKDecker, H.: Answers that have quality. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Carlini, M., Torre, C.M., Nguyen, H.-Q., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7972, pp. 543–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Decker, H.: Measure-based inconsistency-tolerant maintenance of database integrity. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2013. LNCS, vol. 7693, pp. 149–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Inconsistency-tolerant integrity checking. IEEE Transactions of Knowledge and Data Engineering 23(2), 218–234 (2011)Decker, H., Muñoz-Escoí, F.D.: Revisiting and improving a result on integrity preservation by concurrent transactions. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 297–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Dong, X.L., Berti-Equille, L., Srivastava, D.: Data fusion: resolving conflicts from multiple sources (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.00310Eswaran, K., Gray, J., Lorie, R., Traiger, I.: The notions of consistency and predicate locks in a database system. CACM 19(11), 624–633 (1976)Muñoz-Escoí, F.D., Ruiz-Fuertes, M.I., Decker, H., Armendáriz-Íñigo, J.E., de Mendívil, J.R.G.: Extending middleware protocols for database replication with integrity support. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5331, pp. 607–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Fekete, A.: Consistency models for replicated data. In: Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 450–451. Springer (2009)Fekete, A., Gupta, D., Lynch, V., Luchangco, N., Shvartsman, A.: Eventually-serializable data services. In: 15th PoDC, pp. 300–309. ACM (1996)Gilbert, S., Lynch, N.: Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2), 51–59 (2002)Golab, W., Rahman, M., Auyoung, A., Keeton, K., Li, X.: Eventually consistent: Not what you were expecting? ACM Queue, 12(1) (2014)Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 27(2), 159–184 (2006)Gray, J., Lorie, R., Putzolu, G., Traiger, I.: Granularity of locks and degrees of consistency in a shared data base. In: Nijssen, G. (ed.) Modelling in Data Base Management Systems. North Holland (1976)Haerder, T., Reuter, A.: Principles of transaction-oriented database recovery. Computing Surveys 15(4), 287–317 (1983)Herlihy, M., Wing, J.: Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. TOPLAS 12(3), 463–492 (1990)R. Ho. Design pattern for eventual consistency (2009). http://horicky.blogspot.com.es/2009/01/design-pattern-for-eventual-consistency.htmlIkeda, R., Park, H., Widom, J.: Provenance for generalized map and reduce workflows. In: CIDR (2011)Kempster, T., Stirling, C., Thanisch, P.: Diluting acid. SIGMoD Record 28(4), 17–23 (1999)Li, X., Dong, X.L., Meng, W., Srivastava, D.: Truth finding on the deep web: Is the problem solved? VLDB Endowment 6(2), 97–108 (2012)Lloyd, W., Freedman, M., Kaminsky, M., Andersen, D.: Don’t settle for eventual: scalable causal consistency for wide-area storage with cops. In: 23rd SOPS, pp. 401–416 (2011)Lomet, D.: Transactions: from local atomicity to atomicity in the cloud. In: Jones, C.B., Lloyd, J.L. (eds.) Dependable and Historic Computing. LNCS, vol. 6875, pp. 38–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Monge, P., Contractor, N.: Theory of Communication Networks. Oxford University Press (2003)Nicolas, J.-M.: Logic for improving integrity checking in relational data bases. Acta Informatica 18, 227–253 (1982)Muñoz-Escoí, F.D., Irún, L., H. Decker: Database replication protocols. In: Encyclopedia of Database Technologies and Applications, pp. 153–157. IGI Global (2005)Oracle: Constraints. http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14223/constra.htm (May 1, 2015)Ouzzani, M., Medjahed, B., Elmagarmid, A.: Correctness criteria beyond serializability. In: Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 501–506. Springer (2009)Rosenkrantz, D., Stearns, R., Lewis, P.: Consistency and serializability in concurrent datanbase systems. SIAM J. Comput. 13(3), 508–530 (1984)Saito, Y., Shapiro, M.: Optimistic replication. JACM 37(1), 42–81 (2005)Sandhu, R.: On five definitions of data integrity. In: Proc. IFIP WG11.3 Workshop on Database Security, pp. 257–267. North-Holland (1994)Simmons, G.: Contemporary Cryptology: The Science of Information Integrity. IEEE Press (1992)Sivathanu, G., Wright, C., Zadok, E.: Ensuring data integrity in storage: techniques and applications. In: Proc. 12th Conf. on Computer and Communications Security, p. 26. ACM (2005)Svanks, M.: Integrity analysis: Methods for automating data quality assurance. Information and Software Technology 30(10), 595–605 (1988)Technet, M.: Data integrity. https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa933058 (May 1, 2015)Terry, D.: Replicated data consistency explained through baseball. Technical report, Microsoft. MSR Technical Report (2011)Traiger, I., Gray, J., Galtieri, C., Lindsay, B.: Transactions and consistency in distributed database systems. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 7(3), 323–342 (1982)Vidyasankar, K.: Serializability. In: Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 2626–2632. Springer (2009)Vogels, W.: Eventually consistent (2007). http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/12/eventually_consistent.html . Other versions in ACM Queue 6(6), 14–19. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1466448 (2008) and CACM 52(1), 40–44 (2009)Wikipedia: Consistency model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency_model (May 1, 2015)Wikipedia: Data integrity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_integrity (May 1, 2015)Wikipedia: Data quality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality (May 1, 2015)Yin, X., Han, J., Yu, P.: Truth discovery with multiple conflicting information providers on the web. IEEE Transactions of Knowledge and Data Engineering 20(6), 796–808 (2008)Young, G.: Quick thoughts on eventual consistency (2010). http://codebetter.com/gregyoung/2010/04/14/quick-thoughts-on-eventual-consistency/ (May 1, 2015

Normalizing Database Normalization Definitions In AIS Text Books

Due to the abstract nature of the definitions for normal forms, over the years the interpretations of the definitions published in the textbooks, both MIS and AIS disciplines, have been differentiated and even deviated from its original form. The concept of deviation from the original form is a phenomenon that linguists call “semantic drift.” The most noticeable deviations are on first and second normal forms (i.e., 1NF and 2NF). Their definitions range from “atomic attribute” to “removing repeating group” for 1NF and from “functional dependency” to “removing partial dependency” in addition to being 1NF for 2NF. The purpose of this paper is to compare definitions of first, second, and third normal forms from the textbooks with those of the earlier forms and to identify shortfalls if there are any

Transaction processing in consistency-aware user’s applications deployed on NoSQL databases

NoSQL databases are capable of storing and processing big data which is characterized by various properties such as volume, variety and velocity. Such databases are used in a variety of user applications that need large volume of data which is highly available and efficiently accessible. But they do not enforce or require strong data consistency nor do they support transactions. This paper investigates into the transaction processing in consistency-aware applications hosted on MongoDB and Riak which are two representatives of Document and Key-Value NoSQL databases, respectively. It develops new transaction schemes in order to provide NoSQL databases with transactional facilities as well as to analyze the effects of transactions on data consistency and efficiency in user’s applications. The proposed schemes are evaluated using the YCSB + T benchmark which is based on Yahoo! Cloud Services Benchmark (YCSB). Experimental results show that using the proposed schemes, strong consistency can be achieved in MongoDB and Riak without severely affecting their efficiency. We also conduct experiments in order to analyse the level of consistencyof MongoDB and Riak transactional systems

Comparison of Graph Databases and Relational Databases When Handling Large-Scale Social Data

Over the past few years, with the rapid development of mobile technology, more people use mobile social applications, such as Facebook, Twitter and Weibo, in their daily lives, and there is an increasing amount of social data. Thus, finding a suitable storage approach to store and process the social data, especially for the large-scale social data, should be important for the social network companies. Traditionally, a relational database, which represents data in terms of tables, is widely used in the legacy applications. However, a graph database, which is a kind of NoSQL databases, is in a rapid development to handle the growing amount of unstructured or semi-structured data. The two kinds of storage approaches have their own advantages. For example, a relational database should be a more mature storage approach, and a graph database can handle graph-like data in an easier way. In this research, a comparison of capabilities for storing and processing large-scale social data between relational databases and graph databases is applied. Two kinds of analysis, the quantitative research analysis of storage cost and executing time and the qualitative analysis of five criteria, including maturity, ease of programming, flexibility, security and data visualization, are taken into the comparison to evaluate the performance of relational databases and graph databases when handling large-scale social data. Also, a simple mobile social application is developed for experiments. The comparison is used to figure out which kind of database is more suitable for handling large-scale social data, and it can compare more graph database models with real-world social data sets in the future research

Expected utility theory, Jeffrey’s decision theory, and the paradoxes

In Richard Bradley’s book, Decision Theory with a Human Face, we have selected two themes for discussion. The first is the Bolker-Jeffrey theory of decision, which the book uses throughout as a tool to reorganize the whole field of decision theory, and in particular to evaluate the extent to which expected utility theories may be normatively too demanding. The second theme is the redefinition strategy that can be used to defend EU theories against the Allais and Ellsberg paradoxes, a strategy that the book by and large endorses, and even develops in an original way concerning the Ellsberg paradox. We argue that the BJ theory is too specific to fulfil Bradley’s foundational project and that the redefinition strategy fails in both the Allais and Ellsberg cases. Although we share Bradley’s conclusion that EU theories do not state universal rationality requirements, we reach it not by a comparison with BJ theory, but by a comparison with the non-EU theories that the paradoxes have heuristically suggested