mcvsubbu commented on issue #10712: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/issues/10712#issuecomment-1732465263
> > My suggestion would be to NOT change the hybrid table definition. Instead, keep it the same. The logical table binding should happen _before_ we branch between realtime/offline. > > This is basically the idea. Currently hybrid table is an implicit logical table, where it always consist of 2 physical tables - one offline and one real-time. We can keep it implicit and connecting them by the raw table name. I'm thinking we may also introduce an explicit hybrid logical table concept in addition to the implicit one where we allow connecting multiple offline tables with multiple real-time tables, but we need to design a way to represent the time boundary. > What is the use case driving this requirement of needing to maintain time boundary across multiple tables like you describe? I am inclined to say that we let the current REALTIME/OFFLINE be as it is, and call it a HYBRID "physical" table, and not let this leak into the logical table concept we are trying to build (unless there is a use case that cannot be solved otherwise). This may end up complicating the logical table design, just to shoehorn it into the current hybrid table mechanisms. -- 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
