Jackie-Jiang commented on issue #10712: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/issues/10712#issuecomment-1732740103
> 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. Pinot has a scale problem of number of segments in a single physical table due to ZK limit, which can also be solved with the logical table. Thinking about the current hybrid table, it is 2 physical tables with a time boundary. IMO modeling it as a physical table can be more confusing because it is not the basic management unit on server, but only a routing concept on broker, which is actually aligned with the proposed logical table concept. -- 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
