vustef commented on code in PR #2342:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/2342#discussion_r3107285369


##########
crates/iceberg/src/arrow/reader.rs:
##########
@@ -281,16 +282,25 @@ impl ArrowReader {
                 tasks
                     .map_ok(move |task| {
                         let file_io = file_io.clone();
+                        let delete_file_loader = 
self.delete_file_loader.clone();
+
+                        async move {
+                            let stream = Self::process_file_scan_task(
+                                task,
+                                batch_size,
+                                file_io,
+                                delete_file_loader,
+                                row_group_filtering_enabled,
+                                row_selection_enabled,
+                                parquet_read_options,
+                            )
+                            .await?;
 
-                        Self::process_file_scan_task(
-                            task,
-                            batch_size,
-                            file_io,
-                            self.delete_file_loader.clone(),
-                            row_group_filtering_enabled,
-                            row_selection_enabled,
-                            parquet_read_options,
-                        )
+                            // Spawn stream consumption onto a separate tokio 
task so that
+                            // CPU-heavy Parquet decompression runs on the 
tokio thread pool
+                            // rather than being serialized on the polling 
thread.
+                            Ok(Self::spawn_record_batch_stream(stream, 1))

Review Comment:
   Thanks for the detailed answer. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this in 
- in fact, in our fork we rely on this parallel behaviour since we still 
haven't switched our engine to Renjie's suggestion.
   My change was before #2020, so it might be that things have changed since 
then. My impression then wasn't that a concern was that partitioned readers 
wouldn't get concurrency==1, but that we didn't want `to_arrow()` to behave 
like an parallel engine for scanning Iceberg, but keep it as a low-level API. 
If I was wrong, then something like #2020 would've been a very easy change for 
me back then :)
   That said, it is indeed confusing then why it does have 
`concurrency_limit_data_files` at all.
   
   If you're allowed to proceed with the change (🤞 ), then I have one comment 
(as a separate comment).



-- 
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: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to