Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,003

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases

Open access
Thomas, Robert H.·1979·ACM Transactions on Database Systems

Abstract

A “majority consensus” algorithm which represents a new solution to the update synchronization problem for multiple copy databases is presented. The algorithm embodies distributed control and can function effectively in the presence of communication and database site outages. The correctness of the algorithm is demonstrated and the cost of using it is analyzed. Several examples that illustrate aspects of the algorithm operation are included in the Appendix.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/320071.320076

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,003

Metadata

Authors
Thomas, R. H.
Venue
ACM Transactions on Database Systems
Published
1979-06
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
180-209
ISSN
  • 0362-5915 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-4644
OpenAlex
W2110765100
Cited by
1,003
References
1
FWCI
26.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/320071.320076
The paper
Thomas, R. H. (1979). A Majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/320071.320076

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.