Prequel, Inc. is an American technology company and mobile app developer known for developing the Prequel mobile application, which enables editing photos and videos with filters and effects generated using artificial intelligence. Prequel was founded in 2018 by Serge Aliseenko and Timur Khabirov, who currently serves as the company's CEO. It is headquartered in New York City. As of August 2022, it had been downloaded more than 100 million times. == History == In 2016, entrepreneur Timur Khabirov and investor Serge Aliseenko registered a US corporation named AIAR Labs Inc, which was developing AR solutions as an outsourced contractor. Of several proprietary products, Prequel was selected for beta-testing as a product focused on editing photos and videos. In 2018, Prequel was released on the Apple App Store. The launch cost $3 million USD, financed with the founders’ personal funds. The first release included approximately 10 filters for photos and the same amount of effects that augmented images with rose petals, rain and snow, VHS and film reel simulations, glitch, grain, sun puddles, and lomography. By June 2020, the app had also been released for Android. In 2021, Prequel founders Timur Khabirov and Serge Aliseenko launched a venture studio for startups working with artificial, computer vision, and AR-based visual art. In December 2022, Prequel reached the number 14 slot on the global rankings for Apple App Store’s Top Charts and the number 5 slot on the App Store’s U.S. charts. In March 2023, Prequel launched a new app called Artique, which is an AI-powered image editing app for businesses. Artique provides advertising and marketing graphic design using ready-made templates that users can customize, while giving suggestions and visual cues through artificial intelligence. Prequel was also one of the companies participating in discussions about artificial intelligence at SXSW 2023. == Features == Prequel describes its app as an "Aesthetic Pic Editor. The app uses artificial intelligence to create and edit content. Prequel can be used to touch up faces on images and videos and can also tie various decorative elements to certain points on the human body and face. Prequel filters include the "Cartoon" filter, which converts selfies into cartoon-style pictures. Other filters include Kidcore, Dust, Grain, Fisheye, Retro Style, Miami, Disco, and VHS-style filters, as well as the ability to create Renaissance-style pictures. Prequel also gives users the ability to apply color correction tools and to make moving images with 3D effects out of 2D images. Prequel allows users to take photos and videos directly through the app and apply filters and effects in real time. The app also comes with manual editing options for photos, such as adjusting the brightness and/or exposure and cropping photos, as well as an option to automatically apply adjustments. The Prequel app uses the Core ML, MNN, and TFLight frameworks to work with its neural networks. Some AI solutions are launched server-side, and some on the user's mobile device. A resulting photo or video edited with the app is called "a prequel." The app daily generates over 2 million such prequels, which are published by users in Instagram, TikTok, and other social media. As of 2022, the app has more than 800 filters and effects, along with video templates and support for GIFs and stickers. Prequel is free-to-use, but has a premium version that gives users access to more effects, filters, and beauty tools. Since its launch in 2018, Prequel has been downloaded more than 100 million times.
Galaksija BASIC
Galaksija BASIC was the BASIC interpreter of the Galaksija build-it-yourself home computer from Yugoslavia. While being partially based on code taken from TRS-80 Level 1 BASIC, which the creator believed to have been a Microsoft BASIC, the extensive modifications of Galaksija BASIC—such as to include rudimentary array support, video generation code (as the CPU itself did it in absence of dedicated video circuitry) and generally improvements to the programming language—is said to have left not much more than flow-control and floating point code remaining from the original. The core implementation of the interpreter was fully contained in the 4 KiB ROM "A" or "1". The computer's original mainboard had a reserved slot for an extension ROM "B" or "2" that added more commands and features such as a built-in Zilog Z80 assembler. == ROM "A"/"1" symbols and keywords == The core implementation, in ROM "A" or "1", contained 3 special symbols and 32 keywords: ! begins a comment (equivalent of standard BASIC REM command) # Equivalent of standard BASIC DATA statement & prefix for hex numbers ARR$(n) Allocates an array of strings, like DIM, but can allocate only array with name A$ BYTE serves as PEEK when used as a function (e.g. PRINT BYTE(11123)) and POKE when used as a command (e.g. BYTE 11123,123). CALL n Calls BASIC subroutine as GOSUB in most other BASICs (e.g. CALL 100+4X) CHR$(n) converts an ASCII numeric code into a corresponding character (string) DOT x, y draws (command) or inspects (function) a pixel at given coordinates (0<=x<=63, 0<=y<=47). DOT displays the clock or time controlled by content of Y$ variable. Not in standard ROM EDIT n causes specified program line to be edited ELSE standard part of IF-ELSE construct (Galaksija did not use THEN) EQ compare alphanumeric values X$ and Y$ FOR standard FOR loop GOTO standard GOTO command HOME equivalent of standard BASIC CLS command - clears the screen HOME n protects n characters from the top of the screen from being scrolled away IF standard part of IF-ELSE construct (Galaksija did not use THEN) INPUT user entry of variable INT(n) a function that returns the greatest integer value equal to or lesser than n KEY(n) test whether a particular keyboard key is pressed LIST lists the program. Optional numeric argument specifies the first line number to begin listing with. MEM returns memory consumption data (need details here) NEW clears the current BASIC program NEW n clears BASIC program and moves beginning of BASIC area NEXT standard terminator of FOR loop OLD loads a program from tape OLD n loads program to different address PTR Returns address of the variable PRINT Printing numeric or string expression. RETURN Return from BASIC subroutine RND function (takes no arguments) that returns a random number between 0 and 1. RUN runs (executes) BASIC program. Optional numeric argument specifies the line number to begin execution with. SAVE saves a program to tape. Optional two arguments specify memory range to be saved (need details here). STEP standard part of FOR loop STOP stops execution of BASIC program TAKE replacement for READ and RESTORE. If the parameter is variable name, acts as READ, if it is number, acts as RESTORE UNDOT x, y "undraws" (resets) at specified coordinates (see DOT) UNDOT Stops the clock, not part of ROM USR Calls machine code subroutine WORD Double byte PEEK and POKE == ROM "B"/"2" additional symbols and keywords == The extended BASIC features, in ROM "B" or "2", contained one extra reserved symbol and 22 extra keywords: % /LABEL ABS(x) ARCTG(x) COS(x) COSD(x) DEL DUMP EXP(x) INP(x) LDUMP LLIST LN(x) LPRINT OUT PI POW(x,y) REN SIN(x), SIND(x) SQR(x) TG(x) TGD(x)
Metadata repository
A metadata repository is a database created to store metadata. Metadata is information about the structures that contain the actual data. Metadata is often said to be "data about data", but this is misleading. Data profiles are an example of actual "data about data". Metadata adds one layer of abstraction to this definition– it is data about the structures that contain data. Metadata may describe the structure of any data, of any subject, stored in any format. A well-designed metadata repository typically contains data far beyond simple definitions of the various data structures. Typical repositories store dozens to hundreds of separate pieces of information about each data structure. Comparing the metadata of a couple data items - one digital and one physical - clarify what metadata is: First, digital: For data stored in a database one may have a table called "Patient" with many columns, each containing data which describes a different attribute of each patient. One of these columns may be named "Patient_Last_Name". What is some of the metadata about the column that contains the actual surnames of patients in the database? We have already used two items: the name of the column that contains the data (Patient_Last_Name) and the name of the table that contains the column (Patient). Other metadata might include the maximum length of last name that may be entered, whether or not last name is required (can we have a patient without Patient_Last_Name?), and whether the database converts any surnames entered in lower case to upper case. Metadata of a security nature may show the restrictions which limit who may view these names. Second, physical: For data stored in a brick and mortar library, one have many volumes and may have various media, including books. Metadata about books would include ISBN, Binding_Type, Page_Count, Author, etc. Within Binding_Type, metadata would include possible bindings, material, etc. This contextual information of business data include meaning and content, policies that govern, technical attributes, specifications that transform, and programs that manipulate. == Definition == The metadata repository is responsible for physically storing and cataloging metadata. Data in a metadata repository should be generic, integrated, current, and historical: Generic Meta model should store the metadata by generic terms instead of storing it by an applications-specific defined way, so that if your data base standard changes from one product to another the physical meta model of the metadata repository would not need to change. Integration of the metadata repository allows all business areas' metadata to be in an integrated fashion: Covering all domains and subject areas of the organization. current and historical The metadata repository should have accessible current and historical metadata. Metadata repositories used to be referred to as a data dictionary. With the transition of needs for the metadata usage for business intelligence has increased so is the scope of the metadata repository increased. Earlier data dictionaries are the closest place to interact technology with business. Data dictionaries are the universe of metadata repository in the initial stages but as the scope increased Business glossary and their tags to variety of status flags emerged in the business side while consumption of the technology metadata, their lineage and linkages made the repository, the source for valuable reports to bring business and technology together and helped data management decisions easier as well as assess the cost of the changes. Metadata repository explores the enterprise wide data governance, data quality and master data management (includes master data and reference data) and integrates this wealth of information with integrated metadata across the organization to provide decision support system for data structures, even though it only reflects the structures consumed from various systems. == Repository vs. registry == Repository has additional functionalities compared with registry. Metadata repository not only stores metadata like Metadata registry but also adds relationships with related metadata types. Metadata when related in a flow from its point of entry into organization up to the deliverables is considered as the lineage of that data point. Metadata when related across other related metadata types is called linkages. By providing the relationships to all the metadata points across the organization and maintaining its integrity with an architecture to handle the changes, metadata repository provides the basic material for understanding the complete data flow and their definitions and their impact. Also the important feature is to maintain the version control though this statement for contrasting is open for discussion. These definitions are still evolving, so the accuracy of the definitions needs refinement. The purpose of registry is to define the metadata element and maintained across the organization. And data models and other data management teams refer to the registry for any changes to follow. While Metadata repository sources metadata from various metadata systems in the organizations and reflects what is in the upstream. Repository never acts as an upstream while registry is used as an upstream for metadata changes. == Reason for use == Metadata repository enables all the structure of the organizations data containers to one integrated place. This opens plethora of resourceful information for making calculated business decisions. This tool uses one generic form of data model to integrate all the models thus brings all the applications and programs of the organization into one format. And on top of it applying the business definitions and business processes brings the business and technology closer that will help organizations make reliable roadmaps with definite goals. With one stop information, business will have more control on the changes, and can do impact analysis of the tool. Usually business spends much time and money to make decisions based on discovery and research on impacts to make changes or to add new data structures or remove structures in data management of the organization. With a structured and well maintained repository, moving the product from ideation to delivery takes the least amount of time (considering other variables are constant). To sum it up: Integration of the metadata across the organization Build relationship between various metadata types Build relationship between various disparate systems Define business golden copy of definitions Version control of the changes at structure level Interaction with Reference data Link view to master data Automatic synchronization with various authorized metadata source systems More control to business decisions Validate the structures by overlapping the models Discovering discrepancies, gaps, lineage, metrics at data structure level Each database management system (DBMS) and database tools have their own language for the metadata components within. Database applications already have their own repositories or registries that are expected to provide all of the necessary functionality to access the data stored within. Vendors do not want other companies to be capable of easily migrating data away from their products and into competitors products, so they are proprietary with the way they handle metadata. CASE tools, DBMS dictionaries, ETL tools, data cleansing tools, OLAP tools, and data mining tools all handle and store metadata differently. Only a metadata repository can be designed to store the metadata components from all of these tools. == Design == Metadata repositories should store metadata in four classifications: ownership, descriptive characteristics, rules and policies, and physical characteristics. Ownership, showing the data owner and the application owner. The descriptive characteristics, define the names, types and lengths, and definitions describing business data or business processes. Rules and policies, will define security, data cleanliness, timelines for data, and relationships. Physical characteristics define the origin or source, and physical location. Like building a logical data model for creating a database, a logical meta model can help identify the metadata requirements for business data. The metadata repository will be centralized, decentralized, or distributed. A centralized design means that there is one database for the metadata repository that stores metadata for all applications business wide. A centralized metadata repository has the same advantages and disadvantages of a centralized database. Easier to manage because all the data is in one database, but the disadvantage is that bottlenecks may occur. A decentralized metadata repository stores metadata in multiple databases, either separated by location and or departments of the business. This makes management of the repository more involved than a centraliz
Commitment ordering
Commitment ordering (CO) is a class of interoperable serializability techniques in concurrency control of databases, transaction processing, and related applications. It allows optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. With the proliferation of multi-core processors, CO has also been increasingly utilized in concurrent programming, transactional memory, and software transactional memory (STM) to achieve serializability optimistically. CO is also the name of the resulting transaction schedule (history) property, defined in 1988 with the name dynamic atomicity. In a CO compliant schedule, the chronological order of commitment events of transactions is compatible with the precedence order of the respective transactions. CO is a broad special case of conflict serializability and effective means (reliable, high-performance, distributed, and scalable) to achieve global serializability (modular serializability) across any collection of database systems that possibly use different concurrency control mechanisms (CO also makes each system serializability compliant, if not already). Each not-CO-compliant database system is augmented with a CO component (the commitment order coordinator—COCO) which orders the commitment events for CO compliance, with neither data-access nor any other transaction operation interference. As such, CO provides a low overhead, general solution for global serializability (and distributed serializability), instrumental for global concurrency control (and distributed concurrency control) of multi-database systems and other transactional objects, possibly highly distributed (e.g., within cloud computing, grid computing, and networks of smartphones). An atomic commitment protocol (ACP; of any type) is a fundamental part of the solution, utilized to break global cycles in the conflict (precedence, serializability) graph. CO is the most general property (a necessary condition) that guarantees global serializability, if the database systems involved do not share concurrency control information beyond atomic commitment protocol (unmodified) messages and have no knowledge of whether transactions are global or local (the database systems are autonomous). Thus CO (with its variants) is the only general technique that does not require the typically costly distribution of local concurrency control information (e.g., local precedence relations, locks, timestamps, or tickets). It generalizes the popular strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) property, which in conjunction with the two-phase commit protocol (2PC), is the de facto standard to achieve global serializability across (SS2PL based) database systems. As a result, CO compliant database systems (with any different concurrency control types) can transparently join such SS2PL based solutions for global serializability. In addition, locking based global deadlocks are resolved automatically in a CO based multi-database environment, a vital side-benefit (including the special case of a completely SS2PL based environment; a previously unnoticed fact for SS2PL). Furthermore, strict commitment ordering (SCO; Raz 1991c), the intersection of Strictness and CO, provides better performance (shorter average transaction completion time and resulting in better transaction throughput) than SS2PL whenever read-write conflicts are present (identical blocking behavior for write-read and write-write conflicts; comparable locking overhead). The advantage of SCO is especially during lock contention. Strictness allows both SS2PL and SCO to use the same effective database recovery mechanisms. Two major generalizing variants of CO exist, extended CO (ECO; Raz 1993a) and multi-version CO (MVCO; Raz 1993b). They also provide global serializability without local concurrency control information distribution, can be combined with any relevant concurrency control, and allow optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. Both use additional information for relaxing CO constraints and achieving better concurrency and performance. Vote ordering (VO or Generalized CO (GCO); Raz 2009) is a container schedule set (property) and technique for CO and all its variants. Local VO is necessary for guaranteeing global serializability if the atomic commitment protocol (ACP) participants do not share concurrency control information (have the generalized autonomy property). CO and its variants inter-operate transparently, guaranteeing global serializability and automatic global deadlock resolution together in a mixed, heterogeneous environment with different variants. == Overview == The Commitment ordering (CO; Raz 1990, 1992, 1994, 2009) schedule property has been referred to also as Dynamic atomicity (since 1988), commit ordering, commit order serializability, and strong recoverability (since 1991). The latter is a misleading name since CO is incomparable with recoverability, and the term "strong" implies a special case. This means that a substantial recoverability property does not necessarily have the CO property and vice versa. In 2009 CO has been characterized as a major concurrency control method, together with the previously known (since the 1980s) three major methods: Locking, Time-stamp ordering, and Serialization graph testing, and as an enabler for the interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple and possibly Distributed databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is still serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. The problem of achieving global serializability effectively had been characterized as open until the public disclosure of CO in 1991 by its inventor Yoav Raz (Raz 1991a; see also Global serializability). Enforcing CO is an effective way to enforce conflict serializability globally in a distributed system since enforcing CO locally in each database (or other transactional objects) also enforces it globally. Each database may use any, possibly different, type of concurrency control mechanism. With a local mechanism that already provides conflict serializability, enforcing CO locally does not cause any other aborts, since enforcing CO locally does not affect the data access scheduling strategy of the mechanism (this scheduling determines the serializability related aborts; such a mechanism typically does not consider the commitment events or their order). The CO solution requires no communication overhead since it uses (unmodified) atomic commitment protocol messages only, already needed by each distributed transaction to reach atomicity. An atomic commitment protocol plays a central role in the distributed CO algorithm, which enforces CO globally by breaking global cycles (cycles that span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph. CO, its special cases, and its generalizations are interoperable and achieve global serializability while transparently being utilized together in a single heterogeneous distributed environment comprising objects with possibly different concurrency control mechanisms. As such, Commitment ordering, including its special cases, and together with its generalizations (see CO variants below), provides a general, high performance, fully distributed solution (no central processing component or central data structure are needed) for guaranteeing global serializability in heterogeneous environments of multidatabase systems and other multiple transactional objects (objects with states accessed and modified only by transactions; e.g., in the framework of transactional processes, and within Cloud computing and Grid computing). The CO solution scales up with network size and the number of databases without any negative impact on performance (assuming the statistics of a single distributed transaction, e.g., the average number of databases involved with a single transaction, are unchanged). With the proliferation of Multi-core processors, Optimistic CO (OCO) has also been increasingly utilized to achieve serializability in software transactional memory, and numerous STM articles and patents utilizing "commit order" have already been published (e.g., Zhang et al. 2006). == The commitment ordering solution for global serializability == === General characterization of CO === Commitment ordering (CO) is a special case of conflict serializability. CO can be enforced with non-blocking mechanisms (each transaction can complete its task without having its data-access blocked, which allows optimistic concurrency control; however, commitment could be blo
Nice (app)
Nice is a photo-sharing mobile app developed by Nice App Mobile Technology Co., Ltd. (Chinese: 北京极赞科技有限公司) in China. The app allows users to tag specific locations on images, enabling detailed labeling of items such as clothing and accessories. The company received a $36 million investment in C-round funding in 2014. Nice had 30 million registered users and 12 million active users as of late 2015. As of January 2024, it remained a popular app, the 6th most-downloaded in the iOS App Store for China. == Official website == Official website
Pocketbook (application)
Pocketbook was a Sydney-based free budget planner and personal finance app launched in 2012. The app helped users setup and manage budgets, track spending and manage bills. As of 2016 Pocketbook claimed to support over 250,000 Australians, in January 2018 that number was 435,000. After being acquired by Zip Co Ltd in 2016, it was announced in 2022 that the app was to be shut down and all user accounts deleted. == History == Pocketbook was founded by Alvin Singh and Bosco Tan in 2012. It was conceived in 2011 in a Wolli Creek apartment as a tool for Alvin and Bosco to take control of their money. In 2013, Pocketbook raised $500,000 from technology fund Tank Stream Ventures, and a group of investors including TV personality David Koch, Geoff Levy, David Shein and Peter Cooper. In September 2016 Digital retail finance and payment industry player zipMoney (now trading as Zip Co Limited) acquired Pocketbook in a $7.5m deal == Features == The app synced with the bank account of users and would organize spending into different categories. Users could also be reminded of bill payments, analyse spending and set spending limits. They can also be alerted of fraudulent transactions and deductions. The app employs security measures like end to end encryption, CloudFlare protection, fraud detection, identity protection etc. Pocketbook was available via web and mobile version. == Awards == Personal Finance Innovator of the Year by Fintech Business Awards 2017 Innovator of the Year by OPTUS MyBusiness Awards 2017 Best Finance App of 2016 by Australian Fintech Best Personal Finance App: Pocketbook won the 2016 Finder Innovation Awards, presented at a gala dinner hosted by media personality and The New Inventors presenter James O'Loghlin. Best Mobile App of the Year Winner: StartCon hosted the first annual Australasian Startup Awards. Over 200 nominations in 14 categories and an overall winner were reviewed, and winners were determined by public voting, with over 63,000 votes in total. Best New Startup 2014 by StartupSmart. Finalist in the SWIFT Innotribe startup competition in Dubai in 2013.
Snapshot isolation
In databases, and transaction processing (transaction management), snapshot isolation is a guarantee that all reads made in a transaction will see a consistent snapshot of the database (in practice it reads the last committed values that existed at the time it started), and the transaction itself will successfully commit only if no updates it has made conflict with any concurrent updates made since that snapshot. Snapshot isolation has been adopted by several major database management systems, such as InterBase, Firebird, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Anywhere, MongoDB and Microsoft SQL Server (2005 and later). The main reason for its adoption is that it allows better performance than serializability, yet still avoids most of the concurrency anomalies that serializability avoids (but not all). In practice snapshot isolation is implemented within multiversion concurrency control (MVCC), where generational values of each data item (versions) are maintained: MVCC is a common way to increase concurrency and performance by generating a new version of a database object each time the object is written, and allowing transactions' read operations of several last relevant versions (of each object). Snapshot isolation has been used to criticize the ANSI SQL-92 standard's definition of isolation levels, as it exhibits none of the "anomalies" that the SQL standard prohibited, yet is not serializable (the anomaly-free isolation level defined by ANSI). In spite of its distinction from serializability, snapshot isolation is sometimes referred to as serializable by Oracle. == Definition == A transaction executing under snapshot isolation appears to operate on a personal snapshot of the database, taken at the start of the transaction. When the transaction concludes, it will successfully commit only if the values updated by the transaction have not been changed externally since the snapshot was taken. Such a write–write conflict will cause the transaction to abort. In a write skew anomaly, two transactions (T1 and T2) concurrently read an overlapping data set (e.g. values V1 and V2), concurrently make disjoint updates (e.g. T1 updates V1, T2 updates V2), and finally concurrently commit, neither having seen the update performed by the other. Were the system serializable, such an anomaly would be impossible, as either T1 or T2 would have to occur "first", and be visible to the other. In contrast, snapshot isolation permits write skew anomalies. As a concrete example, imagine V1 and V2 are two balances held by a single person, Phil. The bank will allow either V1 or V2 to run a deficit, provided the total held in both is never negative (i.e. V1 + V2 ≥ 0). Both balances are currently $100. Phil initiates two transactions concurrently, T1 withdrawing $200 from V1, and T2 withdrawing $200 from V2. If the database guaranteed serializable transactions, the simplest way of coding T1 is to deduct $200 from V1, and then verify that V1 + V2 ≥ 0 still holds, aborting if not. T2 similarly deducts $200 from V2 and then verifies V1 + V2 ≥ 0. Since the transactions must serialize, either T1 happens first, leaving V1 = −$100, V2 = $100, and preventing T2 from succeeding (since V1 + (V2 − $200) is now −$200), or T2 happens first and similarly prevents T1 from committing. If the database is under snapshot isolation(MVCC), however, T1 and T2 operate on private snapshots of the database: each deducts $200 from an account, and then verifies that the new total is zero, using the other account value that held when the snapshot was taken. Since neither update conflicts, both commit successfully, leaving V1 = V2 = −$100, and V1 + V2 = −$200. Some systems built using multiversion concurrency control (MVCC) may support (only) snapshot isolation to allow transactions to proceed without worrying about concurrent operations, and more importantly without needing to re-verify all read operations when the transaction finally commits. This is convenient because MVCC maintains a series of recent history consistent states. The only information that must be stored during the transaction is a list of updates made, which can be scanned for conflicts fairly easily before being committed. However, MVCC systems (such as MarkLogic) will use locks to serialize writes together with MVCC to obtain some of the performance gains and still support the stronger "serializability" level of isolation. == Workarounds == Potential inconsistency problems arising from write skew anomalies can be fixed by adding (otherwise unnecessary) updates to the transactions in order to enforce the serializability property. Materialize the conflict Add a special conflict table, which both transactions update in order to create a direct write–write conflict. Promotion Have one transaction "update" a read-only location (replacing a value with the same value) in order to create a direct write–write conflict (or use an equivalent promotion, e.g. Oracle's SELECT FOR UPDATE). In the example above, we can materialize the conflict by adding a new table which makes the hidden constraint explicit, mapping each person to their total balance. Phil would start off with a total balance of $200, and each transaction would attempt to subtract $200 from this, creating a write–write conflict that would prevent the two from succeeding concurrently. However, this approach violates the normal form. Alternatively, we can promote one of the transaction's reads to a write. For instance, T2 could set V1 = V1, creating an artificial write–write conflict with T1 and, again, preventing the two from succeeding concurrently. This solution may not always be possible. In general, therefore, snapshot isolation puts some of the problem of maintaining non-trivial constraints onto the user, who may not appreciate either the potential pitfalls or the possible solutions. The upside to this transfer is better performance. == Terminology == Snapshot isolation is called "serializable" mode in Oracle and PostgreSQL versions prior to 9.1, which may cause confusion with the "real serializability" mode. There are arguments both for and against this decision; what is clear is that users must be aware of the distinction to avoid possible undesired anomalous behavior in their database system logic. == History == Snapshot isolation arose from work on multiversion concurrency control databases, where multiple versions of the database are maintained concurrently to allow readers to execute without colliding with writers. Such a system allows a natural definition and implementation of such an isolation level. InterBase, later owned by Borland, was acknowledged to provide SI rather than full serializability in version 4, and likely permitted write-skew anomalies since its first release in 1985. Unfortunately, the ANSI SQL-92 standard was written with a lock-based database in mind, and hence is rather vague when applied to MVCC systems. Berenson et al. wrote a paper in 1995 critiquing the SQL standard, and cited snapshot isolation as an example of an isolation level that did not exhibit the standard anomalies described in the ANSI SQL-92 standard, yet still had anomalous behaviour when compared with serializable transactions. In 2008, Cahill et al. showed that write-skew anomalies could be prevented by detecting and aborting "dangerous" triplets of concurrent transactions. This implementation of serializability is well-suited to multiversion concurrency control databases, and has been adopted in PostgreSQL 9.1, where it is known as Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI). When used consistently, this eliminates the need for the above workarounds. The downside over snapshot isolation is an increase in aborted transactions. This can perform better or worse than snapshot isolation with the above workarounds, depending on workload.