egalpin commented on code in PR #13742:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/13742#discussion_r1716089990
##########
pinot-core/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/core/transport/ServerRoutingInstance.java:
##########
@@ -103,16 +93,16 @@ public boolean equals(Object o) {
return false;
}
ServerRoutingInstance that = (ServerRoutingInstance) o;
- // NOTE: Only check hostname, port and tableType for performance concern
because they can identify a routing
+ // NOTE: Only check hostname and port for performance concern because they
can identify a routing
// instance within the same query
- return _hostname.equals(that._hostname) && _port == that._port &&
_tableType == that._tableType;
+ return _hostname.equals(that._hostname) && _port == that._port;
}
@Override
public int hashCode() {
- // NOTE: Only check hostname, port and tableType for performance concern
because they can identify a routing
+ // NOTE: Only check hostname and port for performance concern because they
can identify a routing
// instance within the same query
- return 31 * 31 * _hostname.hashCode() + 31 * Integer.hashCode(_port) +
_tableType.hashCode();
+ return 31 * _hostname.hashCode() + Integer.hashCode(_port);
Review Comment:
This will have one major intentional implication, which is that we would no
longer open 2 channels from each broker to each server (1 for REALTIME, 1 for
OFFLINE). In turn, that would cause the peak network traffic on a channel to at
worst double, assuming all queries were to hybrid tables. I'm not certain
whether that presents an issue.
--
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]
