Hi Yunfeng, Thanks for the proposal. The POC showed a performance improvement of 20%, which is very exciting. But I have some questions: 1. Is the performance improvement here mainly due to the reduction of serialization, or is it due to the judgment consumption caused by tags? 2. Watermark is not needed in some scenarios, but the latency maker is a useful function. If the latency maker cannot be used, it will greatly limit the usage scenarios. Whether the solution design can retain the capability of the latency marker; 3. The data of the POC test is of long type. Here I want to see how much profit it will have if it is a string with a length of 100B or 1KB.
-- Best, Matt Wang ---- Replied Message ---- | From | Yunfeng Zhou<flink.zhouyunf...@gmail.com> | | Date | 07/13/2023 14:52 | | To | <dev@flink.apache.org> | | Subject | Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-330: Support specifying record timestamp requirement | Hi Jing, Thanks for reviewing this FLIP. 1. I did change the names of some APIs in the FLIP compared with the original version according to which I implemented the POC. As the core optimization logic remains the same and the POC's performance can still reflect the current FLIP's expected improvement, I have not updated the POC code after that. I'll add a note on the benchmark section of the FLIP saying that the namings in the POC code might be outdated, and FLIP is still the source of truth for our proposed design. 2. This FLIP could bring a fixed reduction on the workload of the per-record serialization path in Flink, so if the absolute time cost by non-optimized components could be lower, the performance improvement of this FLIP would be more obvious. That's why I chose to enable object-reuse and to transmit Boolean values in serialization. If it would be more widely regarded as acceptable for a benchmark to adopt more commonly-applied behavior(for object reuse, I believe disable is more common), I would be glad to update the benchmark result to disable object reuse. Best regards, Yunfeng On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 6:37 AM Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com.invalid> wrote: Hi Yunfeng, Thanks for the proposal. It makes sense to offer the optimization. I got some NIT questions. 1. I guess you changed your thoughts while coding the POC, I found pipeline.enable-operator-timestamp in the code but is pipeline.force-timestamp-support defined in the FLIP 2. about the benchmark example, why did you enable object reuse? Since It is an optimization of serde, will the benchmark be better if it is disabled? Best regards, Jing On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:54 AM Yunfeng Zhou <flink.zhouyunf...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all, Dong(cc'ed) and I are opening this thread to discuss our proposal to support optimizing StreamRecord's serialization performance. Currently, a StreamRecord would be converted into a 1-byte tag (+ 8-byte timestamp) + N-byte serialized value during the serialization process. In scenarios where timestamps and watermarks are not needed, and latency tracking is enabled, this process would include unnecessary information in the serialized byte array. This FLIP aims to avoid such overhead and increases Flink job's performance during serialization. Please refer to the FLIP document for more details about the proposed design and implementation. We welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal. Best regards, Dong and Yunfeng [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-330%3A+Support+specifying+record+timestamp+requirement
