kishoreg commented on issue #4219: Support SQL in Pinot. URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-pinot/issues/4219#issuecomment-493645566 @Jackie-Jiang yes, I would love to do this and this was how I started. The problem was that brokerrequest was very widely used in the code and it was very hard to replace it with pinot query in one shot. That's why we put pinotquery inside brokerrequest which kind of makes sense if you think request consisting of query, debugoptions etc. One key goal was to never have something like this in the query execution code. ```if(brokerrequest) { //use broker request } else { //pinot query }``` If we keep old fields (selection, aggInfoList etc) and pinotQuery in the brokerRequest, we can migrate to pinotQuery in steps - operator by operator. For e.g. solve only the selection operator then transform operator and so on. I agree with you only doubling the size of brokerRequest until we migrate the execution layer to use brokerrequest.pinotquery at which point we can delete the references to Selection, etc. I don't think this will add significant overhead in terms of network or cpu usage. We have the validation flag to test this easily. Final Structure of BrokerRequest will be as follows ```BrokerRequest { PinotQuery pinotQuery; bool enableTrace; Map<String,String> requestOptions; }```
---------------------------------------------------------------- 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@pinot.apache.org
