> This does seem like the best compromise, though I think there will still
end up being performance issues. A common pattern I've seen is that there
is a long common prefix to the dynamic destination followed the dynamic
component. e.g. the destination might be
long/common/path/to/destination/files/<per-user-file>. In this case, the
prefix is often much larger than messages themselves and is what gets
effectively encoded in the lambda.
The last option is meant to address this issue. The prefix is specified in
the configuration instead of being present with each message. The "K" in KV
will contain just the part(s) to be appended to the prefix (via string
substitution). This way only the minimal/necessary destination information
gets encoded with the message.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:12 PM Reuven Lax via dev <dev@beam.apache.org>
wrote:
> This does seem like the best compromise, though I think there will still
> end up being performance issues. A common pattern I've seen is that there
> is a long common prefix to the dynamic destination followed the dynamic
> component. e.g. the destination might be
> long/common/path/to/destination/files/<per-user-file>. In this case, the
> prefix is often much larger than messages themselves and is what gets
> effectively encoded in the lambda.
>
> I'm not entirely sure how to address this in a portable context. We might
> simply have to accept the extra overhead when going cross language.
>
> Reuven
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 8:51 AM Robert Bradshaw via dev <
> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for putting this together, it will be a really useful feature to
>> have.
>>
>> I am in favor of the string-pattern approaches. I think we need to
>> support both the {record=..., dest_info=...} and the elide-fields
>> approaches, as the former is nicer when one has a fixed representation for
>> the output record (e.g. a proto or avro schema) and the flattened form for
>> ease of use in more free-form contexts (e.g. when producing records from
>> YAML and SQL).
>>
>> Also left some comments on the doc.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:51 AM Ahmed Abualsaud via dev <
>> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> There have been some conversations lately about how best to enable
>>> dynamic destinations in a portable context. Usually, this comes up for
>>> cross-language transforms and more recently for Beam YAML.
>>>
>>> I've started a short doc outlining some routes we could take. The
>>> purpose is to establish a good standard for supporting dynamic destinations
>>> with portability, one that can be applied to most use cases and IOs. Please
>>> take a look and add any thoughts!
>>>
>>> https://s.apache.org/portable-dynamic-destinations
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Ahmed
>>>
>>
