Hi, Aljoscha, I just go through your prototype. I like the design of the SideInputReader which can make it flexible to determine when we can get the side input.
I agree that side inputs are API sugar on the top of the three components(n-ary inputs, broadcast state and input buffering), following is some more thought about the three component: 1. Take both N-ary input operator and windowing/triggers mechanism into consideration, I think we may need the N-ary input operator supports some inputs(side inputs) are windowed while the others(main input) are normal stream. for static/slow-evolving data, we need to use global windows and for windowed-base join data , we need to use time window or custom windows. The window function on the side input can be used to collect or merge the data to generate the value of the side input(a single value or list/map). Once a side input reader window is triggered, the SideInputReader will return value available, and if a Window is triggered more than once, the value of side input will be updated and maybe the SideInputReader need a interface to notice the user that something changed. Besides, I prefer the option to make every input of N-ary input operator equal, because user may need one side input depends on another side input. 2. Regarding broadcast state, my concern is that how can we merge the value of the state from different subtasks. If the job running in at least once mode, the returned value of broadcast state from different subtasks will be different. Is there already any design on broadcast state? 3. Regarding input buffering, I think if we use window/trigger mechanism, state can be store in the state of window, which may be mostly like what we need to do currently in KeyedWindow and AllWindow. We may need to allow custom merge strategy on all window state data since in side inputs we may need to choose data according to broadcast state strategy while in normal windows we can just redistribute the window state data. What do you think? Best Regards! Wenlong On 14 March 2017 at 01:41, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > Ha! this is turning out to be quite the discussion. :-) Also, thanks > Kenn, for chiming in with the Beam perspective! > > I'll try and address some stuff. > > It seems we have some consensus on using N-ary operator to implement > side inputs. I see two ways forward there: > - Have a "pure" N-ary operator that has zero inputs by default and all > N inputs are equal: this exists side-by-side with the current one-input > operator and two-input operator. > - Extends the existing operators with more inputs: the main input(s) > would be considered different from the N other inputs, internally. With > this, we would not have to rewrite existing operators and could simply > have side inputs as an add-on. > > There weren't any (many?) comments on using broadcast state for side > inputs. I think there is not much to agree on there because it seems > pretty straightforward to me that we need this. > > About buffering: I think we need this as a Flink service because it is > right now not (easily) possible to buffer keyed input. For keyed input > we need to checkpoint the input buffers with the key-grouped state. > Otherwise the data would not be distributed to the correct operator when > restoring. This is explained in the FLIP in more detail. > > If we have these three components (n-ary inputs, broadcast state and > input buffering) then side inputs are mostly API sugar on top. I even > believe that it might be enough to simply provide these and then users > have a very flexible system that allows them to implement different > side-input variants. I'm suggesting this because I see there are a lot > of different opinions and because the "field" of determining a side > input to be finished is still quite open. > > Now, regarding Gabor's comments which, I think, pretty nicely summed up > the ongoing discussion and added some new stuff: > > About the CoFlatMap for the simple case: I think this is almost > possible, except for the buffering in case of a keyed input stream. > Also, the side input is not easy to store because we need broadcast > state for that (depending, of course, on whether the input(s) are keyed > or not). I think with the above-mentioned additions this case would be > possible without explicit support for side inputs in the API. > > Re 1) > I would prefer to use windowing/triggers for determining side-input > readiness. There are, right now, enough messages flying around the > system and introducing yet more doesn't seem to desirable for me right > now. We should, of course, revisit this once we have the basic > components in place. > > Re 2) > See my comments about buffering in a keyed operator above. Regarding > blocking, this is currently not possible because all inputs are consumed > by one thread. This could, of course, change in the future but it is a > feature (limitation?) of the current implementation. In general, I think > blocking an input is only ever feasible while waiting for some bounded > inputs to be fully consumed. I.e. when you have some initial loading of > data from a static data set. > > Re 3) > Agreed, I think that we should keep the side-input in the (yet to be > introduced) broadcast state. Again, once we have the basics in place we > can investigate further optimisations here such as not checkpointing > side-input data from a static data set because we know that we can > easily rebuild it. > > What do you think? > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017, at 20:44, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I thought I would briefly join this thread to mention some side input > > lessons from Apache Beam. My knowledge of Flink is not deep enough, > > technically or philosophically, to make any specific recommendations. And > > I > > might just be repeating things that the docs and threads cover, but I > > hope > > it might be helpful anyhow. > > > > Side Input Visibility / matching: Beam started with a coupling between > > the > > windowing on a stream and the way that windows are mapped between main > > input and side input. This is actually not needed and we'll be making the > > mapping explicit (with sensible defaults). In particular, the mapping > > determines when you can garbage collect, when you know that no main input > > element will ever map to a particular window again (so opaque mappings > > need > > some metadata). > > > > Side Input Readiness: There is an unpleasant asymmetry between waiting > > for > > the first triggering of a side input but not waiting for any later > > triggering. This manifests strongly when a user actually wants to know > > something about the relationship to side input update latency and main > > input processing. This echoes some of the concern here about user-defined > > control over readiness. IMO this is a rather open area. > > > > Default values for singleton side inputs: A special case of side input > > readiness that is related also to windowing. By far the most useful > > singleton side input is the result of a global reduction with an > > associative&commutative operator. A lot of these operators also have an > > identity element. It is nice for this identity element (known a priori) > > to > > be "always available" on the side input, for every window, if it is > > expected to be something that is continually updated. But if the > > configuration is such that it is a one-time triggering of bounded data, > > that behavior is not right. Related, after some amount of time we > > conclude > > that no input will ever be received for a window, and the side input > > becomes ready. > > > > Map Side Inputs with triggers: When new data arrives for a key in Beam, > > there's no way to know which value should "win", so you basically just > > can't use map side inputs with triggers. > > > > These are just some quick thoughts at a very high level. > > > > Kenn > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Jamie, > > > actually the approach where the .withSideInput() comes before the user > > > function is only required for implementation proposal #1, which I like > > > the least. For the other two it can be after the user function, which > is > > > also what I prefer. > > > > > > Regarding semantics: yes, we simply wait for anything to be available. > > > For GlobalWindows, i.e. side inputs on a normal function where we > simply > > > don't have windows, this means that we wait for anything. For the > > > windowed case, which I'm proposing as a second step we will wait for > > > side input in a window to be available that matches the main-input > > > window. For the keyed case we wait for something on the same key to be > > > available, for the broadcast case we wait for anything. > > > > > > Best, > > > Aljoscha > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017, at 16:55, Jamie Grier wrote: > > > > Hi, I think the proposal looks good. The only thing I wasn't clear > on > > > > was > > > > which API is actually being proposed. The one where .withSideInput() > > > > comes > > > > before the user function or after. I would definitely prefer it come > > > > after > > > > since that's the normal pattern in the Flink API. I understood that > > > > makes > > > > the implementation different (maybe harder) but I think it helps > keep the > > > > API uniform which is really good. > > > > > > > > Overall I think the API looks good and yes there are some tricky > > > > semantics > > > > here but in general if, when processing keyed main streams, we always > > > > wait > > > > until there is a side-input available for that key we're off to a > great > > > > start and I think that was what you're suggesting in the design doc. > > > > > > > > -Jamie > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < > aljos...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > these are all valuable suggestions and I think that we should > implement > > > > > them when the time is right. However, I would like to first get a > > > > > minimal viable version of this feature into Flink and then expand > on > > > it. > > > > > I think the last few tries of tackling this problem fizzled out > because > > > > > we got to deep into discussing special semantics and features. I > think > > > > > the most important thing to agree on right now is the basic API > and the > > > > > implementation plan. What do you think about that? > > > > > > > > > > Regarding your suggestions, I have in fact a branch [1] from May > 2016 > > > > > where I implemented a prototype implementation. This has an n-ary > > > > > operator and inputs can be either bounded or unbounded and the > > > > > implementation actually waits for all bounded inputs to finish > before > > > > > starting to process the unbounded inputs. > > > > > > > > > > In general, I think blocking on an input is only possible while > you're > > > > > waiting for a bounded input to finish. If all inputs are unbounded > you > > > > > cannot block because you might run into deadlocks (in the > processing > > > > > graph, due to back pressure) and also because blocking will also > block > > > > > elements that might have a lower timestamp and might fall into a > > > > > different window which is already ready for processing. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Aljoscha > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://github.com/aljoscha/flink/commits/operator-ng-side- > > > input-wrapper > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, at 14:39, wenlong.lwl wrote: > > > > > > Hi Aljoscha, thank you for the proposal, it is great to hear > about > > > the > > > > > > progress in side input. > > > > > > > > > > > > Following is my point of view: > > > > > > 1. I think there may be an option to block the processing of the > main > > > > > > input > > > > > > instead of buffer the data in state because in production, the > > > through > > > > > > put > > > > > > of the main input is usually much larger, and buffering the data > > > before > > > > > > the > > > > > > side input may slow down the preparing of side input since the > i-o > > > and > > > > > > computing resources are always limited. > > > > > > 2. another issue may need to be disscussed: how can we do > > > checkpointing > > > > > > with side input, because static side input may finish soon once > > > started > > > > > > which will stop the checkpointing. > > > > > > 3. I agree with Gyula that user should be able to determines > when a > > > side > > > > > > input is ready? Maybe we can do it one step further: whether > users > > > can > > > > > > determine a operator with multiple inputs to process which input > each > > > > > > time > > > > > > or not? It would be more flexible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards! > > > > > > Wenlong > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 March 2017 at 18:39, Ventura Del Monte < > > > venturadelmo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Aljoscha, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the proposal and for bringing up again this > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the implementation aspect,I would say the first way > could > > > > > > > be easier/faster to implement but it could add some overhead > when > > > > > > > dealing with multiple side inputs through the current 2-streams > > > union > > > > > > > transform. I tried the second option myself as it has less > overhead > > > > > > > but then the outcome was something close to a N-ary operator > > > consuming > > > > > > > first each side input while buffering the main one. > > > > > > > Therefore, I would choose the third option as it is more > generic > > > > > > > and might help also in other scenarios, although its > implementation > > > > > > > requires more effort. > > > > > > > I also agree with Gyula, I think the user should be allowed to > > > define > > > > > the > > > > > > > condition that determines when a side input is ready, e.g., > load > > > the > > > > > side > > > > > > > input first, incrementally update the side input. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Ventura > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message, for the D. Lgs n. 196/2003 (Privacy Code), may > > > contain > > > > > > > confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > > > > > addressee or > > > > > > > authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, > > > copy, > > > > > > > disclose or take any action based on this message or any > > > information > > > > > > > herein. If you have received this message in error, please > advise > > > the > > > > > > > sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. > Thank > > > you > > > > > for > > > > > > > your cooperation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Gyula Fóra < > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Aljoscha, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the nice proposal! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would make sense to allow user's to affect the > > > readiness > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > side input. I think making it ready when the first element > > > arrives is > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > slightly better then making it always ready from usability > > > > > perspective. > > > > > > > For > > > > > > > > instance if I am joining against a static data set I want to > wait > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > whole set before making it ready. This could be exposed as a > user > > > > > defined > > > > > > > > condition that could also recognize bounded inputs maybe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we could also add an aggregating (merging) side input > type, > > > > > that > > > > > > > > could work as a broadcast state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> ezt írta (időpont: > 2017. > > > > > márc. > > > > > > > 6., > > > > > > > > H, 15:18): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to finally agree on a plan for implementing > side > > > > > inputs in > > > > > > > > > Flink. There has already been an attempt to come to > consensus > > > [1], > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > resulted in two design documents. I tried to consolidate > those > > > two > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > also added a section about implementation plans. This is > the > > > > > resulting > > > > > > > > > FLIP: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP- > > > > > > > > 17+Side+Inputs+for+DataStream+API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In terms of semantics I tried to go with the minimal viable > > > > > solution. > > > > > > > > > The part that needs discussing is how we want to implement > > > this. I > > > > > > > > > outlined three possible implementation plans in the FLIP > but > > > what > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > boils down to is that we need to introduce some way of > getting > > > > > several > > > > > > > > > inputs into an operator/task. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please have a look at the doc and let us know what you > think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aljoscha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > > > > 797df0ba066151b77c7951fd7d603a > > > > > > > > 8afd7023920d0607a0c6337db3@1462181294@%3Cdev.flink.apache. > org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Jamie Grier > > > > data Artisans, Director of Applications Engineering > > > > @jamiegrier <https://twitter.com/jamiegrier> > > > > ja...@data-artisans.com > > > >
