Data platforms and analytics

Vipul Goyal, Virendra Kumar, Mayank Singh, Ajith Abraham, Sugata Sanyal

International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing, 2005. ITCC 2005 | December 2011

Sherif Sakr, Sameh Elnikety, Yuxiong He

MSR-TR-2011-138 | December 2011

John P. Caspersen, Mark Vanderwel, William G. Cole, Drew Purves

PLoS ONE | December 2011, Vol 6: pp. e28660

Per-Ake Larson, Spyros Blanas, Cristian Diaconu, Craig Freedman, Jignesh M. Patel, Mike Zwilling

PVLDB Vol 5(4) | December 2011

PVLDB Vol 5(4)

Errata: The first entry in Table 2 (on page 301) is incorrect and has been changed. Current text (incorrect): V is visible only of V was created by transaction T and V’s end timestamp equals infinity. Corrected text: V is visible unless TE = T. Reasoning: When reaching this point in checking visibility we have already determined that either a) V’s begin timestamp is earlier than T’s read time or b) V was created by transaction T. A transaction TE has updated or deleted V but TE is still active. If TE is a different transaction than T then logically V’s end timestamp is still equal to infinity so V is visible to T. However, if T itself updated or deleted V, V should no longer be visible to T because a transaction must respect (“see”) its own changes.

Phil Bernstein, Liang Jeff Chen, Peter Carlin, Dimitrije Filipovic , Michael Rys, Nikita Shamgunov, James F. Terwilliger, Milos Todic, Sasa Tomasevic, Dragan Tomic

IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering | December 2011, Vol 26(6)

Yuzhe Tang, Jianliang Xu, Shuigeng Zhou, Wang-Chien Lee, Dingxiong Deng, Yue Wang

IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems (TPDS) | December 2011, Vol 22