Thanks Weston! Very helpful explanation. On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 6:41 PM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) As a rule of thumb I would probably prefer `async_scheduler`. It's more > feature rich and simpler to use and is meant to handle "long running" tasks > (e.g. 10s-100s of ms or more). > > The scheduler is a bit more complex and is intended for very fine-grained > scheduling. It's currently only used in a few nodes, I think the hash-join > and the hash-group-by for things like building the hash table (after the > build data has been accumulated). > > 2) Neither scheduler manages threads. Both of them rely on the executor in > ExecContext::executor(). The scheduler takes a "schedule task callback" > which it expects to do the actual executor submission. The async scheduler > uses futures and virtual classes. A "task" is something that can be called > which returns a future that will be completed when the task is complete. > Most of the time this is done by submitting something to an executor (in > return for a future). Sometimes this is done indirectly, for example, by > making an async I/O call (which under the hood is usually implemented by > submitting something to the I/O executor). > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 2:56 PM Li Jin <ice.xell...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am reading Acero and got confused about the use of > > QueryContext::scheduler() and QueryContext::async_scheduler(). So I have > a > > couple of questions: > > > > (1) What are the different purposes of these two? > > (2) Does scheduler/aysnc_scheduler own any threads inside their > respective > > classes or do they use the thread pool from ExecContext::executor()? > > > > Thanks, > > Li > > >
