Content deleted Content added
→Hierarchical relationship between serializability classes: Fixed heading title |
→View equivalence: rephrased information to make it more clear |
||
Line 325:
|Com.
|}
The conditions for S3 to be view-equivalent to S1 and
# Failed the first condition of view equivalence because T1 read the initial value for B in S1 and S2, but T2 read the initial value for B in S3.
# Failed the second condition of view equivalence because T2 read the value written by T1 for B in S1 and S2, but T1 read the value written by T2 for B in S3.
# Failed the third condition of view equivalence because T2 did the final write for B in S1 and S2, but T1 did the final write for B in S3.
To quickly analyze whether two schedules are view-equivalent, write both schedules as a list with each action's subscript representing which view-equivalence condition they match. The schedules are view equivalent if and only if all the actions have the same subscript (or lack thereof) in both schedules:
| |||