Need to revise my last answer -- by design there's no guarantee that two cube engines are compatible. They are compatible in terms of the cube output, but there is more like intermediate data that may be required for later merge or refresh. Mixing engines in one cube is not recommended.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Luke Han <[email protected]> wrote: > The system know better than "user" in current case, I don't think this is a > good idea to open this to users which will bring chaos...hard to debug and > troubleshooting issues. > > > Best Regards! > --------------------- > > Luke Han > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Li Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The output cube must be all the same for all engines. So by design, using > > different engine for different segment should be fine. However no one has > > tried that before. > > > > I'm curious about the motivation behind this. What makes you want to do > > this? > > > > > > Yang > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:10 PM, zhong yanghong < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > > > > For cube building, current rule for selecting a cube build engine may > not > > > be perfect for users. Users may want to choose one engine to build > cube. > > > There is one question related to this. Can we support the designation > of > > > build engine at job level? In other words, if we build different > segments > > > belonging to a cube by different engines, will it bring some issue, > > > especially when users need to merge those segments? > > > > > > > > > If there's no issue, should we provide a restful API for users to do > cube > > > building with the designation of build engine? > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Yanghong Zhong > > > > > > Email: [email protected] > > > > > > Mobile: +86 13706747741 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
