Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Optimize data structures in SelectResultValueBuilder #6400

Closed

Conversation

leventov
Copy link
Member

MinMaxPriorityQueue is never needed. Also, when there is no threshold of the number of results, it's practically faster better to aggregate results in an ArrayList from the beginning and then sort in the end, than aggregate in a priority queue (because quick sort is considered faster than heap sort).

Also, I don't understand the meaning of pagingIdentifiers - it's not explained anywhere. Is it important for this Map to put entries in order?

@leventov leventov requested a review from gianm September 28, 2018 19:38
@leventov leventov force-pushed the SelectResultValueBuilder-data-structures branch from 28343e3 to 0c0039f Compare September 28, 2018 19:38
@gianm
Copy link
Contributor

gianm commented Sep 28, 2018

@leventov are you using the Select query today? In general it is worse than the Scan query, except in one way - it supports time ordering. But we can add that to Scan as well. See #5006, #6088.

@leventov
Copy link
Member Author

@gianm no, we don't - I was just passing by this code. However still curious about pagingIdentifiers

@gianm
Copy link
Contributor

gianm commented Sep 28, 2018

I'm not super familiar with how the pagingIdentifiers work exactly, but I think the idea is they represent cursors into specific segments, and are used when you have a paginated select query. I am not sure if the order matters, but I would guess no.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Feb 28, 2019

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 60 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@druid.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Feb 28, 2019
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 7, 2019

This pull request has been closed due to lack of activity. If you think that is incorrect, or the pull request requires review, you can revive the PR at any time.

@stale stale bot closed this Mar 7, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants