| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
| Date: | 2016-12-07 04:26:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSyfsg=gHeqgXyzP0iGWvdyrXqnG-UENzfueaU=2m5-zg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So, isn't it better to compare the performance of some algorithms and
> confirm which is the best for quorum commit? Since this code is hot, i.e.,
> can be very frequently executed, I'd like to avoid waste of cycle as much
> as possible.
It seems to me that it would be simple enough to write a script to do
that to avoid any other noise: allocate an array with N random
elements, and fetch the M-th element from it after applying a sort
method. I highly doubt that you'd see much difference with a low
number of elements, now if you scale at a thousand standbys in a
quorum set you may surely see something :*)
Anybody willing to try out?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-07 04:38:03 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-12-07 03:32:33 | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |