egalpin commented on code in PR #13742:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/13742#discussion_r1917355766
##########
pinot-core/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/core/transport/AsyncQueryResponse.java:
##########
@@ -39,10 +44,13 @@
@ThreadSafe
public class AsyncQueryResponse implements QueryResponse {
private final QueryRouter _queryRouter;
- private final long _requestId;
+
+ // TODO(egalpin): Remove the concept of truncated request ID in next major
release after all servers are expected
+ // to send back tableName in DataTable metadata
+ private final long _canonicalRequestId;
Review Comment:
@Jackie-Jiang ya I could definitely see how modifying `InstanceRequest` (or
making a v2, whatever approach) would result in the fewest total data exchanges
between brokers and servers. There might also be advantages to servers being
able to have the complete set of queries that they should process within a
single context, because that might open the door to further optimizations or
"reduce" phases that can be executed on the servers before returning to brokers.
How do you envision "enhancing `InstanceRequest` to have a list of <query +
searchSegments + optionalSegments>" might be accomplished in terms of managing
upgrades? Would you recommend a distinct `InstanceRequestV2` or some kind of
way to make the existing `InstanceRequest` hold a list of <query +
searchSegments + optionalSegments>?
--
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]
