This makes me worry that the performance regression is elsewhere, in which
case we should investigate.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:02 AM Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Le jeudi 08 mars 2018 à 20:01 +0000, Reuven Lax a écrit :
>
> Does Nexmark use SerializableCoder?
>
>
> Actually SerializableCoder is registered in Nexmark but the default and
> the current configuration are set to use "by hand serialization". See:
>
> public static void setupPipeline(CoderStrategy coderStrategy, Pipeline p) {
> CoderRegistry registry = p.getCoderRegistry();
> switch (coderStrategy) {
> case HAND:
> registry.registerCoderForClass(Auction.class, Auction.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(AuctionBid.class, AuctionBid.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(AuctionCount.class, AuctionCount.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(AuctionPrice.class, AuctionPrice.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(Bid.class, Bid.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(CategoryPrice.class,
> CategoryPrice.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(Event.class, Event.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(IdNameReserve.class,
> IdNameReserve.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(NameCityStateId.class,
> NameCityStateId.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(Person.class, Person.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(SellerPrice.class, SellerPrice.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(Done.class, Done.CODER);
> registry.registerCoderForClass(BidsPerSession.class,
> BidsPerSession.CODER);
> break;
> case AVRO:
> registry.registerCoderProvider(AvroCoder.getCoderProvider());
> break;
> case JAVA:
> registry.registerCoderProvider(SerializableCoder.getCoderProvider());
> break;
> }
> }
>
>
> Etienne
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:42 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> I put the validation checklist spreadsheet is up at
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit?ts=5a1c7310#gid=1663314475
>
> Regarding the direct runner regression on query 10, this is understandable
> given how mutation detection has been changed for serializable coders (and
> should be tracked, probably fixed by avoiding SerializableCoder). It should
> not affect other runners. Could you file a bug?
>
> Regarding waitUntilFinish, this is a bug but not a blocker--it's been
> this way since teardown was introduced. There are many nice-to-haves that
> one could merge from master to the release branch, but we've seen where
> that trend leads.
>
> Regarding the backwards incompatible changes in restriction tracker, this
> is (as I understand it) a change to the experimental SDF API. Eugene, do
> you want to comment on this?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:07 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I confirm that the new release fixes both problems reported previously:
>
> - python package name
> - nexmark query 10 mutability issue with the direct runner.
>
> One extra regression is that the the fix produced a way longer
> execution time on the query.
> Not sure if a blocker but worth tracking.
>
> Query 10 - Batch/Bounded
> Version Runtime(sec) Events(/sec) Results
> 2.3.0 3.6 27609.1 1
> 2.4.0 30.8 3244.3 1
>
> Query 10 - Streaming/Unbounded
> Version Runtime(sec) Events(/sec) Results
> 2.3.0 6.3 15873.0 1
> 2.4.0 101.1 989.4 1
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -1:
> > a) still consider waitUntilFinish broken and a big blocker
> > b) restrictiontracker api changed and is not backward compatible
> > (
> https://github.com/apache/beam/commit/e0034314ad196d2274cef9831ed63e090bf4d4c1#diff-098d7247eb1e9d9423bfa2ae2da38a9d
> )
> >
> > with workarounds and fixes for these two issues the other parts work
> (spark,
> > flink, direct runner, java core) on my projects
> >
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> > 2018-03-08 6:26 GMT+01:00 Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version
> 2.4.0,
> >> as follows:
> >> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> >> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> >>
> >> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> >> * JIRA release notes [1],
> >> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> >> [2],
> >> which is signed with the key with fingerprint BDC9 89B0 1BD2 A463 6010
> >> A1CA 8F15 5E09 610D 69FB [3],
> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> >> * source code tag "v2.4.0-RC2" [5],
> >> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> >> reference
> >> manual [6].
> >> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.2.5 and OpenJDK 1.8.0_112.
> >> * Python artifact are deployed along with the source release to the
> >> dist.apache.org [2]. If I am able to figure out how to build the
> wheels, I
> >> will post them there as well.
> >>
> >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> >> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> - Robert
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12342682&projectId=12319527
> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.4.0/
> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/KEYS
> >> [4]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1030/
> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.4.0-RC2
> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/398
> >
> >
>
>
>
