Thank you Aljoscha,
Yes, I agree we don't need ProcessingTimeEvcitor.
I will change the current TimeEvictors to use EventTimeEvictor as suggested.
Also, figure out a way to pass timestamp to Evictor interface so that we
can avoid exposing StreamRecrods.
Regards,
Vishnu
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
> now you again see what I mentioned a while back: eviction based on
> processing time is not really well defined. I think we can completely get
> rid of "processing time eviction" because it can be replaced by something
> like this:
>
> DataStream input = ...
> DataStream withTimestamps = input.assignTimestampsAndWatermarks(new
> IngestionTimeExtractor()) // this will assign the current processing time
> as timestamp
> withTimestamps
> .keyBy(...)
> .window(...)
> .evictor(new EventTimeEvictor())
> .apply(...)
>
> With this, we would just have to find a good way of passing the timestamps
> in the Evictor interface and a good way of implementing the
> EvictingWindowOperator.
>
> Cheers,
> Aljoscha
>
>
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 18:14 Vishnu Viswanath <
> vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Aljoscha,
> >
> > A)
> > I tried the approach where we set the ProcessingTime explicitly by
> > converting DataStream<T> input to DataStream<Tuple2<Long, T>> using map
> > function and below are my observations:
> > 1. All the current code which uses TimeEvictor (which will be by default
> > changed to ProcessingTimeEvictor) will be forced to implement a mapping
> > Function to agree with the new method signature.
> > 2. Even after doing the above mapping function, the timestamp field of
> the
> > StreamRecord will not be changed. Which might be confusing since now we
> > have two timestamps for the record, one set by the mapping function,
> other
> > in the StreamRecord.
> > 3. Having a Stream of Tuple2<Long, T> makes it confusing to do the keyBy
> > and also the now the WindowFunction has to process Tuple2<Long,T> instead
> > of T.
> > 4. Users might get confused on how to set the ProcessingTime since
> > ProcessingTime is the time at which the records are processed and users
> > might expect that to be a responsibility of Flink
> >
> > Ideally, ProcessingTime should be the time at which a StreamRecord is
> > processed. And if a record is Processed multiple times, e.g., in the case
> > when an element was not evicted from the window, hence processed again
> > during the next trigger the ProcessingTime should be the time at which
> the
> > record was seen/processed the first time. "If my understanding of
> > ProcessingTime is correct", I am thinking I can iterate through the
> records
> > and set the current timestamp as the ProcessingTime if absent. (before
> > doing the eviction)
> >
> > Something like:
> > for(StreamRecord<Object> element: elements) {
> > if (!element.hasTimestamp()) {
> > element.setTimestamp(System.currentTimeMillis());
> > }
> > }
> >
> > B) Regarding not exposing StreamRecord<IN> in the Evictor. If Evictor is
> > given Iterable<IN> then we cannot retrieve time information of the
> records
> > in the EventTimeEvictor do the eviction (but I do see that StreamRecord
> is
> > marked with @Internal)
> >
> > C) Regarding modifying WindowOperator class to take type parameter <S
> > extends AppendingState<IN, ACC>> so that we can remove the duplicate code
> > from EvictingWindowOperator, I would prefer to separate it from this FLIP
> > and create a JIRA for it, what do you say?
> >
> > Please let me know your thoughts.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vishnu
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > regarding a), b) and c): The WindowOperator can be extended to have
> this
> > > signature:
> > > public class WindowOperator<K, IN, ACC, OUT, W extends Window, S
> extends
> > > AppendingState<IN, ACC>>
> > >
> > > that way the shape of state is generic and EvictingWindowOperator can
> use
> > > ListState<IN> there.
> > >
> > > regarding 2.: Yes, we can either take the current processing time/event
> > > time or the max timestamp of elements in the window as the benchmark
> > > against which we compare.
> > >
> > > About ProcessingTimeEvictor: the proposal was to make the timestamp
> > > explicit in the type of elements. Otherwise, how would you access the
> > > processing time of each element? (As I said, the timestamp field in
> > > StreamRecord does not usually contain a processing-time timestamp and I
> > > would like to remove the StreamRecord from the type of the Iterable
> that
> > is
> > > passed to the evictor to avoid code duplication in
> > EvictingWindowOperator)
> > > I'm open for suggestions there since I didn't come up with a better
> > > solution yet. :-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Aljoscha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 at 05:56 Vishnu Viswanath <
> > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Aljoscha,
> > > >
> > > > 1. Regarding the Evictor interface taking Iterable<IN> instead of
> > > > StreamRecord -
> > > >
> > > > a) I am not quite sure I understood what you meant by *"It could be
> a
> > > very
> > > > thin subclass of WindowOperator"* - Currently, most of the code
> > > duplication
> > > > in EvictingWindowOperator is due to the windowStateDescriptor
> > (ListState
> > > > instead of AppendingState compared to WindowOperator). Is this
> > correct?.
> > > >
> > > > b) Do you hope to keep using AppendingState instead of ListState to
> > > avoid
> > > > the duplicate code (e.g., processWatermark(), trigger() etc). If we
> use
> > > > AppendingState, the get() method returns an state of the OUT type
> ACC,
> > > > which cannot be passed to Evictor. So I am assuming we will have to
> > keep
> > > > using ListState here.
> > > >
> > > > c) My not so good idea was to use the FluentIterable to convert the
> > > > Iterable<StreamRecord<IN>> to Iterable<IN> and pass it on to Evictor
> > and
> > > > Window function. Evictor can remove the elements from the Iterable.
> > (Even
> > > > Window function can remove elements). Then clear the state and add
> > > > elements(after removal) back to the state. But in that case, I need
> to
> > > > reconstruct StreamRecord<IN> from IN. Doing so, we will lose the
> > > timestamp
> > > > information that might have been previously set on the original
> > > > StreamRecord<IN> - is there any other way to recreate StreamRecord?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. Regarding ProcessingTimeEvictor -
> > > >
> > > > A TimeEvictor has to evict elements from the window which are older
> > than
> > > a
> > > > given Period from the element with maximum timestamp in the window.
> > When
> > > > considering ProcessingTimestamp(even if it was explicitly set),
> > shouldn't
> > > > the timestamp associated with records be strictly increasing. i.e.,
> > newer
> > > > elements should have higher timestamp than earlier elements. So to
> get
> > > the
> > > > max timestamp we could just get the last element. When using
> > > > EventTimeEvictor, the elements might have arrived out of order hence
> we
> > > > can't just take the timestamp of the last element as maximum
> timestamp,
> > > but
> > > > check each and every element in the window.
> > > >
> > > > We should have two versions of TimeEvictors - EventTime and
> > > ProcessingTime,
> > > > but does ProcessingTimeEvictor need to take a Tupel2<Long,T> since
> > > anyways
> > > > we are going to get the max timestamp by looking at the last element
> in
> > > the
> > > > window?.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Vishnu
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> aljos...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > About processing time and timestamps:
> > > > >
> > > > > The timestamp is either set in the source of in an
> > > > > in-between TimestampAssigner that can be used with
> > > > > DataStream.assignTimestampsAndWatermarks(). However, the
> timestamp in
> > > the
> > > > > element is normally not a "processing-time timestamp". I think it
> > might
> > > > > make sense to split the functionality for the evictors into two
> > parts:
> > > > one
> > > > > that implicitly sets a timestamp and one that uses these
> timestamps.
> > It
> > > > > could look like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > DataStream<T> input = ...
> > > > > // this makes the current processing time explicit in the tuples:
> > > > > DataStream<Tuple2<Long, T>> withTimestamps = input.map(new
> > > > > ReifyProcessingTIme<T>());
> > > > > withTimestamps
> > > > > .keyBy(...)
> > > > > .window(..)
> > > > > .evictor(new ProcessingTimeEvictor<T>())
> > > > > .apply(...)
> > > > >
> > > > > where ProcessingTimeEvictor looks like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > class ProcessingTimeEvictor<T> extends Evictor<Tuple2<Long, T>> {
> > > > > void evictBefore(Iterable<Tuple2<Long, T>>, ...);
> > > > > void evictAfter ...
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > This would make everything that is happening explicit in the type
> > > > > signatures and explicit for the user.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 at 18:32 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > in fact, changing it to Iterable<IN> would simplify things
> because
> > > then
> > > > > we
> > > > > > would not have to duplicate code for the EvictingWindowOperator
> any
> > > > more.
> > > > > > It could be a very thin subclass of WindowOperator.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 03:56 Vishnu Viswanath <
> > > > > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi Aljoscha,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Regarding your concern - to not expose the StreamRecord in the
> > > > Evictor,
> > > > > >> were you able to find any alternative?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I tried to make the methods take Iterable<IN> input similar to
> the
> > > > > >> WindowFunction, but that didn't work since we have to clear the
> > > state
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> add the elements back to the state (to fix the bug mentioned in
> > the
> > > > > >> previous mail)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If you think the interface that accepts
> Iterable<StreamRecord<T>>
> > > > > >> elements is
> > > > > >> good enough, I have the changes ready.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Vishnu
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> > the elements are currently not being removed from the buffers.
> > > > That's
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> bug
> > > > > >> > that we could fix while adding the new Evictor interface.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Cheers,
> > > > > >> > Aljoscha
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 at 13:00 Radu Tudoran <
> > > radu.tudo...@huawei.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Hi Aljoscha,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Can you point us to the way it is handled now. Is there
> > anything
> > > > > else
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > the removing of elements other than the skip in
> > > > > >> EvictingWindowOperator.
> > > > > >> > Is
> > > > > >> > > there something as it was before version 1.x where you had
> an
> > > > > explicit
> > > > > >> > > remove from window buffers?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Dr. Radu Tudoran
> > > > > >> > > Research Engineer - Big Data Expert
> > > > > >> > > IT R&D Division
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH
> > > > > >> > > European Research Center
> > > > > >> > > Riesstrasse 25, 80992 München
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > E-mail: radu.tudo...@huawei.com
> > > > > >> > > Mobile: +49 15209084330
> > > > > >> > > Telephone: +49 891588344173
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH
> > > > > >> > > Hansaallee 205, 40549 Düsseldorf, Germany, www.huawei.com
> > > > > >> > > Registered Office: Düsseldorf, Register Court Düsseldorf,
> HRB
> > > > 56063,
> > > > > >> > > Managing Director: Bo PENG, Wanzhou MENG, Lifang CHEN
> > > > > >> > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Düsseldorf, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf,
> HRB
> > > > > 56063,
> > > > > >> > > Geschäftsführer: Bo PENG, Wanzhou MENG, Lifang CHEN
> > > > > >> > > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential
> > information
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity
> whose
> > > > > address
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in
> > any
> > > > way
> > > > > >> > > (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure,
> > > > > >> > reproduction,
> > > > > >> > > or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
> > > recipient(s)
> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> notify
> > > the
> > > > > >> sender
> > > > > >> > > by phone or email immediately and delete it!
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > > From: Aljoscha Krettek [mailto:aljos...@apache.org]
> > > > > >> > > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:45 AM
> > > > > >> > > To: dev@flink.apache.org
> > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][FLIP-4] Enhance Window Evictor in
> Flink
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > I think there is not yet a clear specification for how the
> > > actual
> > > > > >> removal
> > > > > >> > > of elements from the buffer will work. I think naively one
> can
> > > do:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Iterable<E> currentElements = state.get()
> > > > > >> > > evictor.evict(currentElements); // this will remove some
> stuff
> > > > from
> > > > > >> > there,
> > > > > >> > > or mark for removal
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > state.clear()
> > > > > >> > > // the Iterable does not loop over the removed/marked
> elements
> > > > > >> > > for (E element : currentElements) {
> > > > > >> > > state.add(element)
> > > > > >> > > }
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > This is very costly but the only way I see of doing this
> right
> > > now
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> > > every state backend.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Cheers,
> > > > > >> > > Aljoscha
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 at 09:46 Radu Tudoran <
> > > > radu.tudo...@huawei.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the clarification. Can someone point to where
> the
> > > > > events
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >> > > > removed from buffers - I am trying to understand the new
> > logic
> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > handling
> > > > > >> > > > the eviction in this new API. Thanks
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > > > From: Vishnu Viswanath [mailto:vishnu.viswanath25@
> gmail.com
> > ]
> > > > > >> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 3:04 AM
> > > > > >> > > > To: Dev
> > > > > >> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][FLIP-4] Enhance Window Evictor in
> > Flink
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Hi Radu,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > - Yes we can remove elements from the iterator.
> > > > > >> > > > - Right now the EvictingWindowOperator just skips the
> > elements
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > Iterable before passing to the window function(Yes this
> has
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > >> > > > in the new API)
> > > > > >> > > > - Regarding how the last question on how elements are
> being
> > > > > removed
> > > > > >> > from
> > > > > >> > > > the window buffer. I am not sure how it is working right
> > now,
> > > > but
> > > > > >> when
> > > > > >> > > > trying out the new API that I am working on, I did find a
> > bug
> > > > > where
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > evicted elements are not actually removed from the State.
> I
> > > have
> > > > > >> added
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > > > fix for that. (You can see a mail regarding that in this
> > mail
> > > > > >> chain)
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > Vishnu
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Radu Tudoran <
> > > > > >> radu.tudo...@huawei.com
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Overall I believe that the interfaces and the proposal
> is
> > > > good.
> > > > > I
> > > > > >> > have
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > following question though: can you delete via the
> iterator
> > > > > >> > > > > (Iterable<StreamRecord<T>> elements) the elements?
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I tried to look over the code where the eviction happens
> > (I
> > > > did
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > do
> > > > > >> > > > > these since version 0.10...looks very different now :)
> > > )...the
> > > > > >> only
> > > > > >> > > > > reference I found was the EvictingWindowOperator which
> at
> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > fireOrContinue has a "skip" based on the number of
> > elements
> > > > > >> returned
> > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > the evictor...and these are not put in the collection to
> > be
> > > > > given
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > user function to be applied. I think these will also
> need
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > adjust to the "any operator from anywhere in the window
> > > > buffer".
> > > > > >> > > > > Also - as we are on this topic - can someone explain how
> > > these
> > > > > >> > elements
> > > > > >> > > > > that are not consider anymore for the user function are
> > > > actually
> > > > > >> > > deleted
> > > > > >> > > > > from the window buffer?..i did not manage to find this..
> > > some
> > > > > >> > reference
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > classes/code where this happens would be useful
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Dr. Radu Tudoran
> > > > > >> > > > > Research Engineer - Big Data Expert
> > > > > >> > > > > IT R&D Division
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH
> > > > > >> > > > > European Research Center
> > > > > >> > > > > Riesstrasse 25, 80992 München
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > E-mail: radu.tudo...@huawei.com
> > > > > >> > > > > Mobile: +49 15209084330
> > > > > >> > > > > Telephone: +49 891588344173
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH
> > > > > >> > > > > Hansaallee 205, 40549 Düsseldorf, Germany,
> www.huawei.com
> > > > > >> > > > > Registered Office: Düsseldorf, Register Court
> Düsseldorf,
> > > HRB
> > > > > >> 56063,
> > > > > >> > > > > Managing Director: Bo PENG, Wanzhou MENG, Lifang CHEN
> > > > > >> > > > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Düsseldorf, Amtsgericht
> Düsseldorf,
> > > HRB
> > > > > >> 56063,
> > > > > >> > > > > Geschäftsführer: Bo PENG, Wanzhou MENG, Lifang CHEN
> > > > > >> > > > > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential
> > > > information
> > > > > >> from
> > > > > >> > > > > HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity
> > > whose
> > > > > >> address
> > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > listed above. Any use of the information contained
> herein
> > in
> > > > any
> > > > > >> way
> > > > > >> > > > > (including, but not limited to, total or partial
> > disclosure,
> > > > > >> > > > reproduction,
> > > > > >> > > > > or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
> > > > > recipient(s)
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> > > notify
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > sender
> > > > > >> > > > > by phone or email immediately and delete it!
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > > > > From: Vishnu Viswanath [mailto:
> > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com
> > > ]
> > > > > >> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 12:43 PM
> > > > > >> > > > > To: Dev
> > > > > >> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][FLIP-4] Enhance Window Evictor in
> > > Flink
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I have created a FLIP page for this enhancement
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-
> > > 4+%3A+Enhance+Window+Evictor
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > Vishnu
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Vishnu Viswanath <
> > > > > >> > > > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks Aljoscha.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > > > >> > > aljos...@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> this, in fact, seems to be a bug. There should be
> > > something
> > > > > >> like
> > > > > >> > > > > >> windowState.clear();
> > > > > >> > > > > >> for (IN element: projectedContents) {
> > > > > >> > > > > >> windowState.add(element);
> > > > > >> > > > > >> }
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> after passing the elements to the window function.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> This is very inefficient but the only way I see of
> > doing
> > > it
> > > > > >> right
> > > > > >> > > now.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> Aljoscha
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 at 01:32 Vishnu Viswanath <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > When we use RocksDB as state backend, how does the
> > > > backend
> > > > > >> state
> > > > > >> > > get
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > updated after some elements are evicted from the
> > > window?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > I don't see any update call being made to remove
> the
> > > > > element
> > > > > >> > from
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> state
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > stored in RocksDB.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > It looks like the RocksDBListState is only having
> > get()
> > > > and
> > > > > >> > add()
> > > > > >> > > > > >> methods
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > since it is an AppendingState, but that causes the
> > > > evicted
> > > > > >> > > elements
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> come
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > back when the trigger is fired next time. (It works
> > > fine
> > > > > >> when I
> > > > > >> > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > MemoryStateBackend)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Is this expected behavior or am I missing
> something.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Vishnu
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Vishnu Viswanath <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi Aljoscha,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks! Yes, I have the create page option now in
> > > wiki.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Vishnu Viswanath,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Aljoscha
> Krettek <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> @Radu, addition of more window types and sorting
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > part
> > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > another
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> design proposal. This is interesting stuff but I
> > > think
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > keep
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> issues separated because things can get
> > complicated
> > > > very
> > > > > >> > > quickly.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 at 12:32 Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > > > >> > > > aljos...@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > about TimeEvictor, yes, I think there should
> be
> > > > > specific
> > > > > >> > > > evictors
> > > > > >> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > processing time and event time. Also, the
> > current
> > > > time
> > > > > >> > should
> > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > retrievable from the EvictorContext.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > For the wiki you will need permissions. This
> was
> > > > > >> recently
> > > > > >> > > > changed
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> because
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > there was too much spam. I gave you permission
> > to
> > > > add
> > > > > >> > pages.
> > > > > >> > > > Can
> > > > > >> > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> please
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > try and check if it works?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Cheers,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Aljoscha
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 13:28 Vishnu Viswanath
> <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> Hi all,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> How do we create a FLIP page, is there any
> > > > permission
> > > > > >> > setup
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > required? I
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> don't see any "Create" page(after logging in)
> > > > option
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> header as
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> mentioned in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/
> > > Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> Vishnu
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Vishnu
> > > Viswanath
> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > Hi Aljoscha,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > I agree, the user will know exactly that
> they
> > > are
> > > > > >> > creating
> > > > > >> > > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> EventTime
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > based evictor or ProcessingTime based
> evictor
> > > > > >> looking at
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> code.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > So do you think it will be ok to have
> > multiple
> > > > > >> versions
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> TimeEvictor
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > (one for event time and one for processing
> > > time)
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > also
> > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> DeltaEvcitor
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > (again 2 versions- for event time and
> > > processing
> > > > > >> time) ?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > Please note that the existing behavior of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> TimeEvictor/DeltaEvictor
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> does
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > not consider if it is EventTime or
> > > ProcessingTime
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > e.g., in TimeEvictor the current time is
> > > > considered
> > > > > >> as
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > timestamp
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > the last element in the window
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > *long currentTime =
> > > > > >> > > > > Iterables.getLast(elements).getTimestamp();*
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > not the highest timestamp of all elements
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > what I am trying to achieve is something
> > like:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > *long currentTime;*
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > * if (ctx.isEventTime()) {*
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > * currentTime = getMaxTimestamp(elements);*
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > * } else {*
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > * currentTime =
> > > > > >> > > Iterables.getLast(elements).getTimestamp();*
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > * }*
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > Similarly, in DeltaEvictor the
> > *`lastElement`*
> > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > *`Iterables.getLast(elements);`* and I am
> > > > thinking
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > consider
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > element with max timestamp as the last
> > element
> > > > > >> instead
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > just
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> getting
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > last inserted element as *`lastElement`*
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > Do you think it is the right thing to do or
> > > leave
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > behavior
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> Evictors
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> as
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > is, w.r.t to choosing the last element?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > Vishnu
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Aljoscha
> > > > Krettek
> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> aljos...@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> I still think it should be explicit in the
> > > > class.
> > > > > >> For
> > > > > >> > > > > example,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> if
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> you
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> have
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> this code:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> input
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> .keyBy()
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> .window()
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> .trigger(EventTimeTrigger.create())
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> .evictor(TimeTrigger.create())
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> the time behavior of the trigger is
> > explicitly
> > > > > >> > specified
> > > > > >> > > > > while
> > > > > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> evictor
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> would dynamically adapt based on internal
> > > > workings
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> user
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> might
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> be aware of. Having the behavior explicit
> at
> > > the
> > > > > >> call
> > > > > >> > > site
> > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> very
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> important, in my opinion.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 16:28 Vishnu
> > Viswanath
> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > I was hoping to use the isEventTime
> method
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> WindowAssigner
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> set
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > that information in the EvictorContext.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > What do you think?.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > Thanks and Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > Vishnu Viswanath,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:09 AM,
> Aljoscha
> > > > > >> Krettek <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> aljos...@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > I think the way to go here is to add
> > both
> > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > >> EventTimeEvictor
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> and a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > ProcessingTimeEvictor. The problem is
> > that
> > > > > >> > > > "isEventTime"
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > cannot
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> really be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > determined. That's also the reason why
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> an
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> EventTimeTrigger
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> and a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > ProcessingTimeTrigger. It was just an
> > > > > oversight
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> TimeEvictor
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> does
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > not also have these two versions.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > About EvictingWindowOperator, I think
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > >> make
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > two
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> methods
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > non-final in WindowOperator, yes.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > Cheers,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > Aljoscha
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 14:32 Vishnu
> > > > Viswanath
> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > Hi Aljoscha,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > I am thinking of adding a method
> > boolean
> > > > > >> > > > isEventTime();
> > > > > >> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > EvictorContext apart from
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > long getCurrentProcessingTime();
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > MetricGroup getMetricGroup();
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > long getCurrentWatermark();
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > This method can be used to make the
> > > > Evictor
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > > > iterate
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> through
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> all
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > elements in TimeEvictor. There will
> > be a
> > > > few
> > > > > >> > > changes
> > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> existing
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > behavior of TimeEvictor and
> > DeltaEvictor
> > > > (I
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> > > > > >> mentioned
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > design doc)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > Also, is there any specific reason
> why
> > > the
> > > > > >> open
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > close
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> method
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > WindowEvictor is made final? Since
> the
> > > > > >> > > EvictorContext
> > > > > >> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > EvictingWindowOperator, I need to
> > > override
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > open
> > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > close
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > EvitingWindowOperator to make the
> > > > reference
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > EvictorContext
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> null.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > Thanks and Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > Vishnu Viswanath,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:40 PM,
> Vishnu
> > > > > >> Viswanath
> > > > > >> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > My thought process when asking if we
> > can
> > > > use
> > > > > >> > state
> > > > > >> > > > > >> backend
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> window
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > function was : can we add the
> > elements
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > evicted
> > > > > >> > > > > >> into
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> some
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> state
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > allow the evictAfter to read it
> from
> > > > some
> > > > > >> > context
> > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> remove it
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> from
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > window?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:30 PM,
> > Vishnu
> > > > > >> > Viswanath
> > > > > >> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> Hi Aljoscha,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> Thanks for the explanation, and
> > sorry
> > > > for
> > > > > >> late
> > > > > >> > > > reply
> > > > > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> busy
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> with
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > work.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> I did think about this scenario,
> in
> > > > fact
> > > > > >> in my
> > > > > >> > > > > >> previous
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> mail I
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > thought
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> posting this question, then I
> > > > understood
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > problem
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> will
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> there which ever method we
> > > > choose(Trigger
> > > > > >> > > looking
> > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> pattern
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> or
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > Window
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> looking for pattern).
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> I do have a pretty good watermark
> > but
> > > > my
> > > > > >> > concern
> > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> changes
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > based
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> on the key of these messages(I
> > don't
> > > > know
> > > > > >> if
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> possible,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> haven't
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> started coding that yet. May be
> you
> > > > could
> > > > > >> tell
> > > > > >> > > > me).
> > > > > >> > > > > >> Even
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > if
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> it is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > yes
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> of these watermarks will be
> long(in
> > > > > days),
> > > > > >> > > which I
> > > > > >> > > > > >> don't
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> want
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > trigger
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> to wait that long.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> It looks like it is not easy to
> > have
> > > an
> > > > > >> > > evictAfter
> > > > > >> > > > > >> based
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > on
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> window
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> function(without introducing
> > > coupling),
> > > > > but
> > > > > >> > can
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > current
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> window
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > apply
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> function be modified to allow it
> to
> > > > > change
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> elements
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> it
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> -
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> may
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> using some state backend(I don't
> > know
> > > > how
> > > > > >> > > excatly
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> internals
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > these
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> work, so this might be a wrong
> > > > question)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> Thanks and Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> Vishnu Viswanath,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:20 AM,
> > > > Aljoscha
> > > > > >> > > Krettek
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> Hi Vishnu,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> how long would these patterns
> be?
> > > The
> > > > > >> Trigger
> > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> have
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > sort
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> elements for every new element
> but
> > > > just
> > > > > >> > insert
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> new
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> element
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> into
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> internal data structure. Only
> when
> > > it
> > > > > sees
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> watermark is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > past a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> certain point would it check
> > whether
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > pattern
> > > > > >> > > > > >> matches
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > actually
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> Trigger.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> A general note regarding order
> and
> > > > event
> > > > > >> > time:
> > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > >> think
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> relying
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> on
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> computation is very tricky
> unless
> > > the
> > > > > >> > watermark
> > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> 100 %
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> correct or
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> completely discard elements that
> > > > arrive
> > > > > >> after
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> watermark,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> i.e.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> elements
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> that would break the promise of
> > the
> > > > > >> watermark
> > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > no
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> elements
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> with
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> earlier timestamp will ever
> > arrive.
> > > > The
> > > > > >> > reason
> > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > there
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> could
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> always enter new elements that
> end
> > > up
> > > > > >> between
> > > > > >> > > > > already
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > seen
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > elements.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > For
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> example, let's say we have this
> > > > sequence
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > elements
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > when
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > trigger
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> fires:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> a-b-a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> This is the sequence that you
> are
> > > > > looking
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > emit
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> some
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > result
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> from
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> the WindowFunction. Now, new
> > > elements
> > > > > >> arrive
> > > > > >> > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > >> fall
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> between
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> elements we already have:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> a-d-e-b-f-g-a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> This is an updated, sorted view
> of
> > > the
> > > > > >> actual
> > > > > >> > > > > >> event-time
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> stream
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> didn't realize that the stream
> > > > actually
> > > > > >> looks
> > > > > >> > > > like
> > > > > >> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> before.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > Does
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> still match the original pattern
> > or
> > > > > >> should we
> > > > > >> > > now
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > consider
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> as
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> non-matching? If no, then the
> > > earlier
> > > > > >> > > successful
> > > > > >> > > > > >> match
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> a-b-a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > was
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> wrong
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> and we should never have
> processed
> > > it
> > > > > but
> > > > > >> we
> > > > > >> > > > didn't
> > > > > >> > > > > >> know
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> at
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > time.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > If
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> yes, then pattern matching like
> > this
> > > > can
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > done
> > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> Trigger
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> by
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > having
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> something like pattern slots:
> You
> > > > don't
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > store
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > all
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> elements
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> Trigger, you just need to store
> > > > possible
> > > > > >> > > > candidates
> > > > > >> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> could
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > match
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> pattern and ignore the other
> > > > > (in-between)
> > > > > >> > > > elements.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> Aljoscha
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 at 14:10
> Vishnu
> > > > > >> Viswanath
> > > > > >> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > Hi Aljoscha,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > That is a good idea, trying to
> > tie
> > > > it
> > > > > >> back
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> case,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > e.g., suppose trigger is
> looking
> > > > for a
> > > > > >> > > pattern,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> a-b-a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> when it
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > sees
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> such
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > a pattern, it will trigger the
> > > > window
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > > > knows
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> now
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> Evictor is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > going to evict the element b,
> > and
> > > > > >> trigger
> > > > > >> > > > updates
> > > > > >> > > > > >> its
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> state as
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > a-a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> (even
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > before the window & evictor
> > > > completes)
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> looking
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> rest of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > the pattern i.e., b-a. But I
> can
> > > > think
> > > > > >> of 1
> > > > > >> > > > > problem
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> here,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > - the events can arrive out
> > of
> > > > > order,
> > > > > >> > > i.e.,
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> trigger
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> might
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> seeing
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > a pattern a-a-b but actual
> > > event
> > > > > >> time is
> > > > > >> > > > a-b-a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> then
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> trigger
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > will
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> have to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > sort the elements in the
> > window
> > > > > >> > everytime
> > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > >> sees
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > an
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> element.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > (I
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > was
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > planning to do this sorting
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > window,
> > > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> will be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> less
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > often
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> -
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > only
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > when the trigger fires)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > Thanks and Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > Vishnu Viswanath,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 6:04
> AM,
> > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > > >> > > > Krettek
> > > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > come to think of it, the
> right
> > > > place
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > put
> > > > > >> > > > > such
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> checks
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > actually
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > Trigger. It would have to
> be a
> > > > > custom
> > > > > >> > > trigger
> > > > > >> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> observes
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > time
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> also
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > keeps some internal state
> > > machine
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > decide
> > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > >> > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> has
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > observed
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > right
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > pattern in the window. Then
> > the
> > > > > window
> > > > > >> > > > function
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > would
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> just
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> have
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> do the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > processing and you have good
> > > > > >> separation
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> concerns.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> Does
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > make
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > sense?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > I'm ignoring time and
> sorting
> > by
> > > > > time
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > now
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > because
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> we
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > probably
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> need
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > another design document for
> > > that.
> > > > To
> > > > > >> me
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > > > seems
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > like
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> bigger
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > thing.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > Cheers,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > Aljoscha
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >
>
