yashmayya commented on code in PR #14946:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/14946#discussion_r1935404586
##########
pinot-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/broker/requesthandler/MultiStageBrokerRequestHandler.java:
##########
@@ -112,6 +118,7 @@ public MultiStageBrokerRequestHandler(PinotConfiguration
config, String brokerId
CommonConstants.MultiStageQueryRunner.KEY_OF_MULTISTAGE_EXPLAIN_INCLUDE_SEGMENT_PLAN,
CommonConstants.MultiStageQueryRunner.DEFAULT_OF_MULTISTAGE_EXPLAIN_INCLUDE_SEGMENT_PLAN);
_queryThrottler = queryThrottler;
+ _queryCompileExecutor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool(new
NamedThreadFactory("query-compile-executor"));
Review Comment:
There's a cached thread pool executor in `BrokerAdminApiApplication` that
could be moved up to `BaseBrokerStarter` and then shared between the broker
request handler and the admin api application. I'm not sure I agree on cached
thread pools being a bad idea here though. Isn't it a great use case for one?
We have many short lived tasks that are executed with timeouts here (we're also
cancelling them if timeouts are exceeded but I'm not sure how Calcite code
handles these interrupts in the planning / optimization phase). Why would it be
better to use a fixed thread pool here?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
