Transaction anomalies: reading uncommitted changes is called a “dirty read,” not a “filthy read.” Is the given statement correct?

Introduction / Context:
ACID-compliant systems classify anomalies such as dirty reads, nonrepeatable reads, and phantom reads. Accurate terminology is crucial. The statement uses “filthy read” instead of the standard term “dirty read.”

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A dirty read occurs when one transaction reads data modified by another transaction that has not yet committed.
• Dirty reads are typically possible only at the lowest isolation (READ UNCOMMITTED) or with special hints.
• The standard label across literature is “dirty read.”

Concept / Approach:
Although the definition in the sentence matches the phenomenon, the incorrect term makes the statement invalid in a correctness/terminology sense. Precision matters for exams and professional communication.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Identify the anomaly described: read of uncommitted data.Recall the standard name: “dirty read.”Compare with the given term: “filthy read” is nonstandard and incorrect.Therefore, the statement is invalid.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consult isolation level definitions: only “dirty read” appears alongside “nonrepeatable” and “phantom” in documentation and textbooks.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Vendor differences do not rename the anomaly; phantom reads are a different phenomenon (new rows matching a predicate appear between reads).

Common Pitfalls:
Mixing up dirty vs. nonrepeatable reads; assuming READ COMMITTED allows dirty reads (it does not).

Final Answer:
Invalid statement