Jackie-Jiang commented on PR #11393: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/11393#issuecomment-1685175693
> Are we losing any functionality/feature? What about brokers as intermediate nodes.. also, how can we mark some nodes as shuffle servers in future for expensive queries @kishoreg We are not losing any functionality, and this should be the correct way to handle it. Without this fix, it can only support tables with the basic balanced assignment. In the future if we want to introduce dedicated shuffle servers, we can add a new tag for it. Initially I tried to solve the problem by maintaining a tag to servers map (no table config read), but realize it won't work for more advanced assignment, e.g. one table referencing the instance partitions from another table. That won't be big change, so we can do it that way when adding the shuffle server feature. -- 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]
