Document Open Access Logo

Bounding the Makespan of Transaction Schedules

Authors Tim Baccaert , Brecht Vandevoort , Bas Ketsman

PDF

File

Thumbnail PDF
PDF
LIPIcs.ICDT.2026.10.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.36 MB
  • 20 pages

Document Identifiers

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Discrete optimization
  • Information systems → Database transaction processing
Keywords
  • Transactions
  • Scheduling
  • Discrete Optimization
  • Complexity

Metrics

Abstract

The performance of transactional database systems is typically evaluated by measuring the amount of transactions they can commit to the database per second. However, fairly measuring this for the same workload on different systems is not trivial. It is therefore relevant to formalize schedule efficiency, investigate the space of all possible efficient schedules, and identify whether there is any room for improvement. Prior transaction theory largely centers on decision problems relating to safety, such as the serializability, robustness, and allocation problems. Most pertinently, these problems take already scheduled transactions as input, and do not directly consider the efficiency of those schedules.
In this work, we define schedules as assignments of operations on objects to discrete points in time. This allows us to quantify efficiency as the elapsed duration between the schedule’s beginning and end, more commonly known as the makespan in the scheduling literature. We establish that, given some set of transactions and a desired makespan, it is NP-complete to decide if there exists a conflict serializable schedule which is bounded by that makespan. We additionally provide an instance optimal algorithm for scheduling transaction sets with a single contention point, that is, exactly one object may appear in conflicting operations. Lastly, we give worst-case optimal bounds on the makespan, meaning that schedules can never exceed this bound, and for the worst transaction sets, the bound is optimal.

Cite As Get BibTex

Tim Baccaert, Brecht Vandevoort, and Bas Ketsman. Bounding the Makespan of Transaction Schedules. In 29th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2026). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 365, pp. 10:1-10:20, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2026) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2026.10

Author Details

Tim Baccaert
  • Software Languages Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
Brecht Vandevoort
  • UHasselt, Data Science Institute, ACSL, Diepenbeek, Belgium
Bas Ketsman
  • Software Languages Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

Funding

This work is partly funded by FWO-grant G019921N.

References

  1. Dana Van Aken, Djellel Eddine Difallah, Andrew Pavlo, Carlo Curino, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux. Benchpress: Dynamic workload control in the oltp-bench testbed. In Timos K. Sellis, Susan B. Davidson, and Zachary G. Ives, editors, Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, May 31 - June 4, 2015, pages 1069-1073. ACM, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2723372.2735354.
  2. Tim Baccaert and Bas Ketsman. Cascade: Optimal transaction scheduling for high-contention workloads. In PhD Symposium of the 40th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2024, Utrecht, The Netherlands, May 13-16, 2024, pages 5634-5638. IEEE, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00452.
  3. Peter Bailis, Aaron Davidson, Alan D. Fekete, Ali Ghodsi, Joseph M. Hellerstein, and Ion Stoica. Highly available transactions: Virtues and limitations. Proc. VLDB Endow., 7(3):181-192, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.14778/2732232.2732237.
  4. Peter Brucker. Scheduling algorithms (4. ed.). Springer, 2004. Google Scholar
  5. Gerard J. Chang, Li-Da Tong, Jing-Ho Yan, and Hong-Gwa Yeh. A Note on The Gallai-Roy-Vitaver Theorem. Discret. Math., 256(1-2):441-444, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-365X(02)00386-2.
  6. Audrey Cheng, Aaron N. Kabcenell, Jason Chan, Xiao Shi, Peter D. Bailis, Natacha Crooks, and Ion Stoica. Towards optimal transaction scheduling. Proc. VLDB Endow., 17(11):2694-2707, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.14778/3681954.3681956.
  7. Brian F. Cooper, Adam Silberstein, Erwin Tam, Raghu Ramakrishnan, and Russell Sears. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with YCSB. In Joseph M. Hellerstein, Surajit Chaudhuri, and Mendel Rosenblum, editors, Proceedings of the 1st ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, SoCC 2010, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, June 10-11, 2010, pages 143-154. ACM, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1807128.1807152.
  8. Transaction Processing Performance Council. Tpc benchmark c standard specification revision 5.2, 2006. Google Scholar
  9. Pierluigi Crescenzi. A short guide to approximation preserving reductions. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, Ulm, Germany, June 24-27, 1997, pages 262-273. IEEE Computer Society, 1997. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/CCC.1997.612321.
  10. Djellel Eddine Difallah, Andrew Pavlo, Carlo Curino, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux. Oltp-bench: An extensible testbed for benchmarking relational databases. Proc. VLDB Endow., 7(4):277-288, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.14778/2732240.2732246.
  11. Alan D. Fekete. Allocating isolation levels to transactions. In Chen Li, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, June 13-15, 2005, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pages 206-215. ACM, 2005. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1065167.1065193.
  12. Aleksei V. Fishkin, Klaus Jansen, and Monaldo Mastrolilli. On minimizing average weighted completion time: A PTAS for the job shop problem with release dates. In Toshihide Ibaraki, Naoki Katoh, and Hirotaka Ono, editors, Algorithms and Computation, 14th International Symposium, ISAAC 2003, Kyoto, Japan, December 15-17, 2003, Proceedings, volume 2906 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 319-328. Springer, 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24587-2_34.
  13. Aleksei V. Fishkin, Klaus Jansen, and Monaldo Mastrolilli. Grouping techniques for scheduling problems: Simpler and faster. Algorithmica, 51(2):183-199, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-007-9086-6.
  14. Donald Gross, John F. Shortle, James M. Thompson, and Carl M. Harris. Fundamentals of Queueing Theory, Fourth Edition. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118625651.
  15. Juraj Hromkovic. Algorithmics for Hard Problems - Introduction to Combinatorial Optimization, Randomization, Approximation, and Heuristics. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04616-6.
  16. S. M. Johnson. Optimal Two- and Three-stage Production Schedules with Setup Times Included. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 1(1):61-68, 1954. Google Scholar
  17. Selmer M. Johnson. Generation of permutations by adjacent transposition. Mathematics of Computation, 17(83):282-285, 1963. Google Scholar
  18. Bas Ketsman, Christoph Koch, Frank Neven, and Brecht Vandevoort. Concurrency control for database theorists. SIGMOD Rec., 51(4):6-17, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3582302.3582304.
  19. Bas Ketsman, Christoph Koch, Frank Neven, and Brecht Vandevoort. Deciding robustness for lower SQL isolation levels. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 47(4):13:1-13:41, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3561049.
  20. Frank Thomson Leighton, Bruce M. Maggs, and Andréa W. Richa. Fast algorithms for finding o(congestion + dilation) packet routing schedules. Comb., 19(3):375-401, 1999. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004930050061.
  21. J.K. Lenstra and A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan. Computational complexity of discrete optimization problems. In P.L. Hammer, E.L. Johnson, and B.H. Korte, editors, Discrete Optimization I, volume 4 of Annals of Discrete Mathematics, pages 121-140. Elsevier, 1979. Google Scholar
  22. Monaldo Mastrolilli and Ola Svensson. Hardness of approximating flow and job shop scheduling problems. J. ACM, 58(5):20:1-20:32, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2027216.2027218.
  23. Christos Papadimitriou. The theory of database concurrency control. Computer Science Press, Inc., USA, 1986. Google Scholar
  24. Christos H. Papadimitriou. The serializability of concurrent database updates. J. ACM, 26(4):631-653, 1979. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/322154.322158.
  25. Michael L. Pinedo. Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems. Springer, 2022. Google Scholar
  26. Luyi Qu, Yuming Li, Rong Zhang, Ting Chen, Ke Shu, Weining Qian, and Aoying Zhou. Application-oriented workload generation for transactional database performance evaluation. In 38th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2022, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 9-12, 2022, pages 420-432. IEEE, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE53745.2022.00036.
  27. Yuri N. Sotskov and Natalia V. Shakhlevich. Np-hardness of shop-scheduling problems with three jobs. Discret. Appl. Math., 59(3):237-266, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-218X(95)80004-N.
  28. Hugo Steinhaus. One hundred problems in elementary mathematics. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1964. Google Scholar
  29. H. F. Trotter. Algorithm 115: Perm. Commun. ACM, 5(8):434-435, August 1962. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/368637.368660.
  30. Brecht Vandevoort. Optimizing Concurrency Control: Robustness Against Read Committed Revisited. PhD thesis, Hasselt University, Belgium, 2021. URL: https://hdl.handle.net/1942/35460.
  31. Brecht Vandevoort, Bas Ketsman, and Frank Neven. Allocating isolation levels to transactions in a multiversion setting. In Floris Geerts, Hung Q. Ngo, and Stavros Sintos, editors, Proceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2023, Seattle, WA, USA , June 18-23, 2023, pages 69-78. ACM, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3584372.3588672.
  32. Gerhard Weikum and Gottfried Vossen. Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control and Recovery. Morgan Kaufmann, 2002. Google Scholar
  33. Siyang Weng, Qingshuai Wang, Luyi Qu, Rong Zhang, Peng Cai, Weining Qian, and Aoying Zhou. Lauca: A workload duplicator for benchmarking transactional database performance. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 36(7):3180-3194, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2024.3360116.
  34. Huidong Zhang, Luyi Qu, Qingshuai Wang, Rong Zhang, Peng Cai, Quanqing Xu, Zhifeng Yang, and Chuanhui Yang. Dike: A benchmark suite for distributed transactional databases. In Sudipto Das, Ippokratis Pandis, K. Selçuk Candan, and Sihem Amer-Yahia, editors, Companion of the 2023 International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD/PODS 2023, Seattle, WA, USA, June 18-23, 2023, pages 95-98. ACM, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3555041.3589710.
Any Issues?
X

Feedback on the Current Page

CAPTCHA

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted to Dagstuhl Publishing

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2025 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact