On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Indeed, I haven't thought about that, and that's a no-brainer. That >> would remove the need to allocate and sort each array, what is simply >> needed is to track the number of times a newest value has been found. >> So what this processing would do is updating the write/flush/apply >> values for the first k loops if the new value is *older* than the >> current one, where k is the quorum number, and between k+1 and N the >> value gets updated only if the value compared is newer. No need to >> take the mutex lock for a long time as well. > > Sorry, I could not understand this algorithm. Could you elaborate > this? It takes only O(n) times?
Nah, please forget that, that was a random useless thought. There is no way to be able to select the k-th element without knowing the hierarchy induced by the others, which is what the partial sort would help with here. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers