Yousef J. Al-Houmaily

dblp:36/5628 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2004
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 3 · 3 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Transaction processing and concurrency control · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Distributed systems · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Transaction processing and concurrency control
distributed commit protocols
0.021999
Atomicity with Incompatible Presumptions · PODS 1999
An Argument in Favour of Presumed Commit Protocol · ICDE 1997
Transaction processing and concurrency control › distributed commit protocols
two-phase commit
0.011999
Atomicity with Incompatible Presumptions · PODS 1999
Distributed systems › distributed database
commit protocol
0.011999
Atomicity with Incompatible Presumptions · PODS 1999
Distributed systems
fault tolerance
0.011999
Atomicity with Incompatible Presumptions · PODS 1999

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

protocol integration · 0.0correctness proof · 0.0unsolicited update-vote optimization · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2004 ML-1-2PC: An Adaptive Multi-level Atomic Commit Protocol
Yousef J. Al-Houmaily, Panos K. Chrysanthis
ADBIS1
2000 An atomic commit protocol for gigabit-networked distributed database systems
Yousef J. Al-Houmaily, Panos K. Chrysanthis
J. Syst. Archit.1
1999 Atomicity with Incompatible Presumptions
abstract
We identify one of the incompatibility problems associated with atomic commit :protocols that prevents them from being used together and wei derive a correctness criterion that captures the correctness of their integration.We also present a new atomic commit Iprotocol, called Presumed Any, that integrates the three commonly known two-phase commit protocols and prove its correctness.
Yousef J. Al-Houmaily, Panos K. Chrysanthis
PODS1
1997 An Argument in Favour of Presumed Commit Protocol
abstract
The authors argue in favor of the presumed commit protocol by proposing two new presumed commit variants that significantly reduce the cost of logging activities associated with the original presumed commit protocol. Furthermore, for read-only transactions, they apply their unsolicited update-vote optimization and show that the cost associated with this type of transactions is the same in both presumed commit and presumed abort protocols, thus, nullifying the basis for the argument that favors the presumed abort protocol. This is especially important for modern distributed environments which are characterized by high reliability and high probability of transactions being committed rather than aborted.
Yousef J. Al-Houmaily, Panos K. Chrysanthis, Steven P. Levitan
ICDE1