jugomezv commented on PR #10418: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/10418#issuecomment-1478744324
> My thinking was more towards my first comment. Both what is on master and this PR are not fundamentally right. But this version at least gives you true positives; if it says lag > 0, it is definitely > 0. I would argue that makes it more useful even in this intermediate state. > > That said, my feelings aren't that strong, and I'm mostly commenting as an interested observer. If you're both comfortable with/prefer a completely separate patch, that's totally fine with me. This was exactly my initial view but I @navina and @Jackie-Jiang convinced me there may be a better solution along the lines of what I just pushed. The other bad side effect on my original proposal was that if we get a sequence of batch of messages that are: [ValidEventBatch][NullMsgBatch][ValidEventBatch].... etc our metric will jump between a real value and zero creating very bad experience for users, if you can try this new patch that would be great. -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@pinot.apache.org
