Sounds perfect. Just wanted to make sure that "custom metrics of supported type" didn't include new ways of aggregating ints. As long as that means we have a fixed set of aggregations (that align with what what users want and metrics back end support) it seems like we are doing user metrics right.
- Ben On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:30 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe leave it out until proven it is needed. ATM counters are used a lot > but others are less mainstream so being too fine from the start can just > add complexity and bugs in impls IMHO. > > Le 12 avr. 2018 08:06, "Robert Bradshaw" <rober...@google.com> a écrit : > >> By "type" of metric, I mean both the data types (including their >> encoding) and accumulator strategy. So sumint would be a type, as would >> double-distribution. >> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:39 PM Ben Chambers <bjchamb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> When you say type do you mean accumulator type, result type, or >>> accumulator strategy? Specifically, what is the "type" of sumint, sumlong, >>> meanlong, etc? >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 9:38 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Fully custom metric types is the "more speculative and difficult" >>>> feature that I was proposing we kick down the road (and may never get to). >>>> What I'm suggesting is that we support custom metrics of standard type. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 5:52 PM Ben Chambers <bchamb...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The metric api is designed to prevent user defined metric types based >>>>> on the fact they just weren't used enough to justify support. >>>>> >>>>> Is there a reason we are bringing that complexity back? Shouldn't we >>>>> just need the ability for the standard set plus any special system >>>>> metrivs? >>>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 5:43 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. I think this has simplified things. >>>>>> >>>>>> One thing that has occurred to me is that we're conflating the idea >>>>>> of custom metrics and custom metric types. I would propose the MetricSpec >>>>>> field be augmented with an additional field "type" which is a urn >>>>>> specifying the type of metric it is (i.e. the contents of its payload, as >>>>>> well as the form of aggregation). Summing or maxing over ints would be a >>>>>> typical example. Though we could pursue making this opaque to the runner >>>>>> in >>>>>> the long run, that's a more speculative (and difficult) feature to >>>>>> tackle. >>>>>> This would allow the runner to at least aggregate and report/return to >>>>>> the >>>>>> SDK metrics that it did not itself understand the semantic meaning of. >>>>>> (It >>>>>> would probably simplify much of the specialization in the runner itself >>>>>> for >>>>>> metrics that it *did* understand as well.) >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition, rather than having UserMetricOfTypeX for every type X >>>>>> one would have a single URN for UserMetric and it spec would designate >>>>>> the >>>>>> type and payload designate the (qualified) name. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Robert >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 5:12 PM Alex Amato <ajam...@google.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you everyone for your feedback so far. >>>>>>> I have made a revision today which is to make all metrics refer to a >>>>>>> primary entity, so I have restructured some of the protos a little bit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The point of this change was to futureproof the possibility of >>>>>>> allowing custom user metrics, with custom aggregation functions for its >>>>>>> metric updates. >>>>>>> Now that each metric has an aggregation_entity associated with it >>>>>>> (e.g. PCollection, PTransform), we can design an approach which forwards >>>>>>> the opaque bytes metric updates, without deserializing them. These are >>>>>>> forwarded to user provided code which then would deserialize the metric >>>>>>> update payloads and perform the custom aggregations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it has also simplified some of the URN metric protos, as >>>>>>> they do not need to keep track of ptransform names inside themselves >>>>>>> now. >>>>>>> The result is simpler structures, for the metrics as the entities are >>>>>>> pulled outside of the metric. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have mentioned this in the doc now, and wanted to draw attention >>>>>>> to this particular revision. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:53 AM Alex Amato <ajam...@google.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've gathered a lot of feedback so far and want to make a decision >>>>>>>> by Friday, and begin working on related PRs next week. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please make sure that you provide your feedback before then and I >>>>>>>> will post the final decisions made to this thread Friday afternoon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:38 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nice, I created a short link so people can refer to it easily in >>>>>>>>> future discussions, website, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://s.apache.org/beam-fn-api-metrics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Robert Bradshaw < >>>>>>>>> rober...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > Thanks for the nice writeup. I added some comments. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:53 PM Alex Amato <ajam...@google.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Hello beam community, >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Thank you everyone for your initial feedback on this proposal >>>>>>>>> so far. I >>>>>>>>> >> have made some revisions based on the feedback. There were some >>>>>>>>> larger >>>>>>>>> >> questions asking about alternatives. For each of these I have >>>>>>>>> added a >>>>>>>>> >> section tagged with [Alternatives] and discussed my >>>>>>>>> recommendation as well >>>>>>>>> >> as as few other choices we considered. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> I would appreciate more feedback on the revised proposal. >>>>>>>>> Please take >>>>>>>>> >> another look and let me know >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MtBZYV7NAcfbwyy9Op8STeFNBxtljxgy69FkHMvhTMA/edit >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Etienne, I would appreciate it if you could please take another >>>>>>>>> look after >>>>>>>>> >> the revisions I have made as well. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Thanks again, >>>>>>>>> >> Alex >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
