On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If M (i.e., number of quorum sync standbys) is enough large,
>> your choice would be good. But usually M seems not so large.
> Thank you for the comment.
> One another possible idea is to use the partial selection sort[1],
> which takes O(MN) time. Since this is more efficient if N is small
> this would be better than qsort for this case. But I'm not sure that
> we can see such a difference by result of performance measurement.
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_algorithm#Partial_selection_sort

We'll begin to see a minimal performance impact when selecting a sync
standby across hundreds of them, which is less than say what 0.1% (or
less) of existing deployments are doing. The current approach taken
seems simple enough to be kept, and performance is not something to
worry much IMHO.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to