justinborromeo commented on issue #6088: Scan query: time-ordering
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/6088#issuecomment-459569465
If someone submits a Druid SQL query to order by timestamp with a limit >
threshold, is the ideal behaviour to fail the query completely or
justinborromeo commented on issue #6088: Scan query: time-ordering
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/6088#issuecomment-459555345
Should time-ordering be supported for legacy mode scan queries? Just
wondering since the timestamp format is different.
justinborromeo commented on issue #6088: Scan query: time-ordering
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/6088#issuecomment-459170520
The current output of the scan query is a collection of ScanResultValue
objects (String segmentId, List columns, Object events) where each
justinborromeo commented on issue #6088: Scan query: time-ordering
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/6088#issuecomment-458773614
The way Scan is written now, the "scan query doesn't retain all rows in
memory before rows can be returned to client"
justinborromeo commented on issue #6088: Scan query: time-ordering
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/6088#issuecomment-458658358
Would it make sense to have a parameter timeOrder _and_ the descending
parameter in BaseQuery?
justinborromeo commented on issue #6088: Scan query: time-ordering
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/6088#issuecomment-458384495
@gianm How would this look from an interface point of view? Would we be
adding a new JSON field or is there an existing field where a user
