somandal commented on code in PR #9117:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/9117#discussion_r931636725
##########
pinot-core/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/core/query/scheduler/QueryScheduler.java:
##########
@@ -237,6 +240,13 @@ protected byte[]
processQueryAndSerialize(ServerQueryRequest queryRequest, Execu
_serverMetrics.addTimedTableValue(tableNameWithType,
ServerTimer.TOTAL_CPU_TIME_NS, totalCpuTimeNs,
TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS);
}
+ if (queryHasMVSelectionOrderBy) {
+ _serverMetrics.addMeteredTableValue(tableNameWithType,
ServerMeter.QUERY_HAS_MV_SELECTION_ORDER_BY, 1);
+ }
+
+ // Remove the 'QUERY_HAS_MV_SELECTION_ORDER_BY' metadata from the
DataTable as the Broker does not need to know
+ // about this metadata or emit a metric related to it
+
dataTableMetadata.remove(MetadataKey.QUERY_HAS_MV_SELECTION_ORDER_BY.getName());
Review Comment:
Thanks for the suggestion! What do you mean by flagging the query on the
Broker side?
@siddharthteotia and I did discuss whether we need a Broker side metric for
this before opening the PR. We can always look for the metric on the servers
and check the server logs for the broker and check the queries coming in at the
time on the Broker side to identify what these queries are. So we didn't think
it was necessary to add a metric on the Broker side too. Let me know if you
think there are other advantages of adding this on the Broker side too.
--
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]
