In this article we discuss such challenges. The transaction models based upon the ACID rules have proved to be quite durable in their course of time. They serve as a foundation for the present database and transaction systems. Many types of environments, parallel as well as distributed have used this basic model for implementing their own complex database systems. These environments however require some additional techniques such as the two - phase commit protocol. Though this model has been a great success, it suffers from few limitations.
The model lacks flexibility and thus is not able to model some particular kinds of interactions between the organization and the complex systems. Also in collaborative environments, a piece of data cannot be strictly isolated even if it is desirable. Also since the ACID transaction model suits well for the systems with short and simple transactions, it is not so appropriate for the workflow management systems.
Such systems require rich transaction models with multi – level notion. For other environments for e.g., the mobile wireless networks also this model does not suffice. In such environments expectations of having large disconnection period are higher. Then we have the internet which is a loosely coupled WAN (wide area network) which too cannot fully adopt ACID model because the availability is low. We require techniques which can help the ACID model in adjusting to such extremely varying situations.
Research is going on new techniques that help in maintaining concurrency control as well as recovering in dissemination – oriented environments, heterogeneous systems and so on. Another problem is that this model is not capable of exploiting the data and application semantics through a general mechanism. Knowledge about this can help a great deal in improving the performance of the system by a significant margin. A separate research has been going on over the subject of recovery and concurrency control. The DBMS’ recovery component is responsible for durability as well as atomicity of the ACID transactions. Distinguishing between the volatile storage and the non – volatile storage becomes absolutely necessary. The below mentioned three types of failure pose a challenge for the proper working of a DBMS:
- Transaction failure: In some cases it happens that the transaction during execution reaches a state from where it cannot commit successfully. In such cases all the updates made by that transaction have to be erased from the database as a measure of atomicity preservation. This is called transaction rollback.
- System failure: A system failure often causes a loss of volatile memory contents. It has to be ensured that the updates made by all the transactions before the occurrence of the crash persist in the database and the updates made by the unsuccessful transactions have been removed.
- Media failure: In these failures, the non – volatile storage gets corrupted which makes it impossible to recover the online version of the data. Here the option is to restore the database from an archive and using operation logs all the updates must be made.
Recovery from the last kind of failure requires using other additional mechanisms. For all this to take effect, the recovery component has to be reliable. Flaws in the recovery system of a database put it to a high risk of losing data.