anshul98ks123 commented on PR #18317: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/18317#issuecomment-4418828277
> After a second thought, I started questioning whether we want a slim version of IndexConfig. > > IndexConfig itself is not stored within TableConfig physically, and it is a logical representation on top of the physical indexing config stored within TableConfig. When user asks for it, it is mostly for debugging purpose, and the values are never persisted. For debugging purpose, I feel it is better to keep the info verbose (showing all effective configs, including the default ones). `IndexConfig` is never persisted directly. > > Could you please confirm if my understanding is correct? The issue is that when we're manipulating a particular index in APIs/DP, we are inferring the config eventually as IndexConfig, and not plain jsonNode, which when inferred, gets populated with fat config, and then when applied with any modification, results in full fat config overriding the initial slim configuration. Either: 1. We keep slim configurations of indexes throughout (this PR) 2. or we deal plainly in terms of JsonNode form of these configs whenever manipulating these. I'll explore this path as well. We'd need change only in (Infer/Apply)Indexes APIs in that case -- 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]
