Hi, Jane
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
> Maybe it deserves another FLIP to discuss whether we need a
multiple-level state TTL configuration mechanism and how to properly
implement it.
+1, and this is also what I want to emphasize. The title of this FLIP is
"For Table API & SQL", but this proposal actually only covers SQL jobs via
compiled json plan, SQL users who don't want or cannot use the compiled
json plan could not use the feature. If the FLIP title can state the scope
more precisely , e.g., "Enhance EXECUTE PLAN to support operator-level
state TTL configuration", it would be much more rigorous and
self-consistent, and many concerns in the mailing list may not exist. WDYT?
Sincerely,
Shuo
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 11:58 AM Jane Chan <qingyue....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Shammon and Shuo,
>
> Thanks for your valuable comments!
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> @Shuo
> > I think it's more properly to say that hint does not affect the
> equivalenceof execution plans (hash agg vs sort agg), not the equivalence
> of execution
> results, e.g., users can set 'scan.startup.mode' for kafka connector by
> dynamic table option, which
> also "intervene in the calculation of data results".
>
> IMO, the statement that "hint should not interfere with the calculation
> results", means it should not interfere with internal computation. On the
> other hand, 'scan.startup.mode' interferes with the ingestion of the data.
> I think these two concepts are different, but of course, this is just my
> opinion and welcome other views.
>
> > I think the final shape of state ttl configuring may like the that,
> userscan define operator state ttl using SQL HINT (assumption...), but it
> may
> affects more than one stateful operators inside the same query block, then
> users can further configure a specific one by modifying the compiled json
> plan...
>
> Setting aside the issue of semantics, setting TTL from a higher level seems
> to be attractive. This means that users only need to configure
> 'table.exec.state.ttl' through the existing hint syntax to achieve the
> effect. Everything is a familiar formula. But is it really the case? Hints
> apply to a very broad range. Let me give an example.
>
> Suppose a user wants to set different TTLs for the two streams in a stream
> join query. Where should the hints be written?
>
> -- the original query before configuring state TTL
> create temporary view view1 as select .... from my_table_1;
> create temporary view view2 as select .... from my_table_2;
> create temporary view joined_view as
> select view1.*, view2.* from my_view_1 a join my_view_2 b on a.join_key =
> b.join_key;
>
> Option 1: declaring hints at the very beginning of the table scan
>
> -- should he or she write hints when declaring the first temporary view?
> create temporary view view1 as select .... from my_table_1
> /*+(OPTIONS('table.exec.state.ttl'
> = 'foo'))*/;
> create temporary view view2 as select .... from my_table_2
> /*+(OPTIONS('table.exec.state.ttl'
> = 'bar'))*/;
> create temporary view joined_view as
> select view1.*, view2.* from my_view_1 a join my_view_2 b on a.join_key =
> b.join_key;
>
> Option 2: declaring hints when performing the join
>
> -- or should he or she write hints when declaring the join temporary view?
> create temporary view view1 as select .... from my_table_1;
> create temporary view view2 as select .... from my_table_2;
> create temporary view joined_view as
> select view1.*, view2.* from my_view_1 /*+(OPTIONS('table.exec.state.ttl' =
> 'foo'))*/ a join my_view_2 /*+(OPTIONS('table.exec.state.ttl' = 'bar'))*/ b
> on a.join_key = b.join_key;
>
> From the user's point of view, does he or she needs to care about the
> difference between these two kinds of style? Users might think the two may
> be equivalent; but in reality, as developers, how do we define the range in
> which hint starts and ends to take effect?
>
> Consider the following two assumptions
>
> 1. Assuming the hint takes effect from the moment it is declared and
> applies to any subsequent stateful operators until it is overridden by a
> new hint.
> If this is the assumption, it's clear that Option 1 and Option 2 are
> different because a ChangelogNormalize node can appear between scan and
> join. Meanwhile, which stream's TTL to apply to the following query after
> the stream join? It is unclear if the user does not explicitly set it.
> Should the engine make a random decision?
>
> 2. Assuming that the scope of the hint only applies to the current query
> block and does not extend to the next operator.
> In this case, the first way of setting the hint will not work because it
> cannot be brought to the join operator. Users must choose the second way to
> configure. Are users willing to remember this strange constraint on SQL
> writing style? Does this indicate a new learning cost?
>
> The example above is used to illustrate that while this approach may seem
> simple and direct, it actually has many limitations and may produce
> unexpected behavior. Will users still find it attractive? IMO *hints only
> work for a very limited situation where the query is very simple, and its
> scope is more coarse and not operator-level*. Maybe it deserves another
> FLIP to discuss whether we need a multiple-level state TTL configuration
> mechanism and how to properly implement it.
>
> @Shammon
> > Generally, Flink jobs support two types
> of submission: SQL and jar. If users want to use `TTL on Operator` for SQL
> jobs, they need to edit the json file which is not supported by general job
> submission systems such as flink sql-client, apache kyuubi, apache
> streampark and .etc. Users need to download the file and edit it manually,
> but they may not have the permissions to the storage system such as HDFS in
> a real production environment. From this perspective, I think it is
> necessary to provide a way similar to
> hits that users can configure the `TTL on Operator` in their sqls which
> help users to use it conveniently.
>
> IIUC, SQL client supports the statement "EXECUTE PLAN
> 'file:/foo/bar/example.json'". While I think there is not much evidence to
> say we should choose to use hints, just because users cannot touch their
> development environment. As a reply to @Shuo, the TTL set through hint way
> is not at the operator level. And whether it is really "convenient" needs
> more discussion.
>
> > I agree with @Shuo's idea that for complex cases, users can combine hits
> and `json plan` to configure `TTL on Operator` better.
>
> Suppose users can configure TTL through
> <1> SET 'table.exec.state.ttl' = 'foo';
> <2> Modify the compiled JSON plan;
> <3> Use hints (personally I'm strongly against this way, but let's take it
> into consideration).
> IMO if the user can configure the same parameter in so many ways, then the
> complex case only makes things worse. Who has higher priority and who
> overrides who?
>
> Best,
> Jane
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 11:00 AM Shammon FY <zjur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi jane
> >
> > Thanks for initializing this discussion. Configure TTL per operator can
> > help users manage state more effectively.
> >
> > I think the `compiled json plan` proposal may need to consider the impact
> > on the user's submission workflow. Generally, Flink jobs support two
> types
> > of submission: SQL and jar. If users want to use `TTL on Operator` for
> SQL
> > jobs, they need to edit the json file which is not supported by general
> job
> > submission systems such as flink sql-client, apache kyuubi, apache
> > streampark and .etc. Users need to download the file and edit it
> manually,
> > but they may not have the permissions to the storage system such as HDFS
> in
> > a real production environment.
> >
> > From this perspective, I think it is necessary to provide a way similar
> to
> > hits that users can configure the `TTL on Operator` in their sqls which
> > help users to use it conveniently. At the same time, I agree with @Shuo's
> > idea that for complex cases, users can combine hits and `json plan` to
> > configure `TTL on Operator` better. What do you think? Thanks
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Shammon FY
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:58 PM Shuo Cheng <njucs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Correction: “users can set 'scan.startup.mode' for kafka connector” ->
> > > “users
> > > can set 'scan.startup.mode' for kafka connector by dynamic table
> option”
> > >
> > > Shuo Cheng <njucs...@gmail.com>于2023年3月23日 周四21:50写道：
> > >
> > > > Hi Jane,
> > > > Thanks for driving this, operator level state ttl is absolutely a
> > desired
> > > > feature. I would share my opinion as following:
> > > >
> > > > If the scope of this proposal is limited as an enhancement for
> compiled
> > > > json plan, it makes sense. I think it does not conflict with
> > configuring
> > > > state ttl
> > > > in other ways, e.g., SQL HINT or something else, because they just
> work
> > > in
> > > > different level, SQL Hint works in the exact entrance of SQL API,
> while
> > > > compiled json plan is the intermediate results for SQL.
> > > > I think the final shape of state ttl configuring may like the that,
> > users
> > > > can define operator state ttl using SQL HINT (assumption...), but it
> > may
> > > > affects more than one stateful operators inside the same query block,
> > > then
> > > > users can further configure a specific one by modifying the compiled
> > json
> > > > plan...
> > > >
> > > > In a word, this proposal is in good shape as an enhancement for
> > compiled
> > > > json plan, and it's orthogonal with other ways like SQL Hint which
> > works
> > > in
> > > > a higher level.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nips:
> > > >
> > > > > "From the SQL semantic perspective, hints cannot intervene in the
> > > > calculation of data results."
> > > > I think it's more properly to say that hint does not affect the
> > > > equivalence of execution plans (hash agg vs sort agg), not the
> > > equivalence
> > > > of execution results, e.g., users can set 'scan.startup.mode' for
> kafka
> > > > connector, which also "intervene in the calculation of data results".
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Shuo
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 7:52 PM Jane Chan <qingyue....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi devs,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd like to start a discussion on FLIP-292: Support configuring
> state
> > > TTL
> > > >> at operator level for Table API & SQL programs [1].
> > > >>
> > > >> Currently, we only support job-level state TTL configuration via
> > > >> 'table.exec.state.ttl'. However, users may expect a fine-grained
> state
> > > TTL
> > > >> control to optimize state usage. Hence we propose to
> > > serialize/deserialize
> > > >> the state TTL as metadata of the operator's state to/from the
> compiled
> > > >> JSON
> > > >> plan, to achieve the goal that specifying different state TTL when
> > > >> transforming the exec node to stateful operators.
> > > >>
> > > >> Look forward to your opinions!
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240883951
> > > >>
> > > >> Best Regards,
> > > >> Jane Chan
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
