Thanks, all, I can see how my conclusion was kind of a leap.
What Matthias said is indeed what I was thinking. When you provide a window definition to the windowBy() method, you are selecting an algorithm that will be used to compute the windows from the input data. I didn’t mean the code implementation “algorithm”, but the high-level algorithm that describes how the input stream will be transformed into a sequence of windows. For example, the algorithm for Windows is something like “given the record timestamp, include the record in each of the enumerated windows”. Note that there can be a lot of variation in how the windows are enumerated, which is why there are at least a couple of implementations of Windows, and we are open to adding more (like for natural calendar boundaries). For SessionWindows, it’s more like “if any window is within the gap, extend its boundaries to include this record and if two windows touch, then merge them”. Clearly, the algorithm for SlidingWindows doesn’t fall into either category, so it seems inappropriate to claim that it does in the API (by implementing Windows with stubbed methods) and then cast internally to execute a completely different algorithm. To your other observation, that the DSL object resulting from windowBy would look the same for Windows and SessionWindows, maybe it makes sense for windowBy(SessionWindows) also to return a TimeWindowedKStream. i.e.: ======================= <W extends Window> TimeWindowedKStream<K, V> windowedBy(final Windows<W> windows); TimeWindowedKStream<K, V> windowedBy(final SlidingWindows windows); ======================= I can’t think of a reason this wouldn’t work. But then again, it would be more future-proof to go ahead and specify a different return type now, if we think we'll want to add subtractors and stuff later. I don't have a strong feeling about that part of the API. It seems to be independent of whether SlidingWindows extends Windows or not. Thanks, -John On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, at 19:41, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > I think what John tries to say is the following: > > We have `windowedBy(Windows)` that accept hopping/tumbling windows but > also custom window and we use a specific algorithm. Note, that custom > windows must "work" based on the used algorithm. > > For session windows we have `windowedBy(SessionWindows)` and apply a > different algorithm. Users could pass in a custom `SessionWindows` as > long as the session algorithm works correctly for it. > > For the new sliding windows, we want to use a different algorithm > compare to hopping/tumbling windows. If we let sliding window extend > `Windows`, we can decide at runtime if we need to use the > hopping/tumbling window algorithm for hopping/tumbling windows or the > new sliding window algorithm for sliding windows. However, if we get a > custom window, which algorithm do we pick now? The existing > tumbling/hopping window algorithm of the new sliding window algorithm? > Both a custom "time-window" and custom "sliding window" implement the > generic `Windows` class and thus we cannot make a decision as we don't > know the user's intent. > > As a matter of fact, even if the user might not be aware of it, the > algorithm we use does already leak into the API (if a user extends > `Windows` is must work with our hopping/tumbling window algorithm and if > a user extends `SessionWindows` it must work with our session algorithm) > and it seems we need to preserve this property for sliding window. > > > -Matthias > > On 7/22/20 4:35 PM, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > > Hey John, > > > > Just a few follow-up questions/comments about the whole Windows thing: > > > > That's a good way of looking at things; in particular the point about > > SessionWindows > > for example requiring a Merger while other "statically enumerable" windows > > require > > only an adder seems to touch on the heart of the matter. > > > > It seems like what Time and Universal (and any other Windows > >> implementation) have in common is that the windows are statically > >> enumerable. > >> As a consequence, they can all rely on an aggregation maintenence algorithm > >> that involves enumerating each of the windows and updating it. That > >> also means that their DSL object (TimeWindowedKStream) doesn't need > >> "subtractors" or "mergers", but only "adders"; again, this is a consequence > >> of the fact that the windows are enumerable. > > > > > > Given that, I'm a bit confused why you conclude that sliding windows are > > fundamentally > > different from the "statically enumerable" windows -- sliding windows > > require only an > > adder too. I'm not sure it's a consequence of being enumerable, or that > > being enumerable > > is the fundamental property that unites all Windows (ignoring JoinWindows > > here). Yes, it > > currently does apply to all Windows implementations, but we shouldn't > > assume that it > > *has *to be that way on the basis that it currently happens to be. > > > > Also, the fact that they can all rely on the same aggregation algorithm > > seems like an > > implementation detail and it would be weird to force a separate/new DSL API > > just because > > under the covers we swap in a different processor. > > > > To be fair, I don't think there's a strong reason *against* not extending > > Windows -- in the end > > it will just mean adding a new #windowedBy method and copy/pasting > > everything from > > TimeWindowedKStream pretty much word for word. But anytime you find > > yourself > > copying over code almost exactly, there should probably be a good reason > > why :) > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:48 PM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Thanks Leah! > >> > >> 5) Regarding the empty windows, I'm wondering if we should simply propose > >> that the windows should not be emitted downstream of the operator or > >> visible in IQ. Then, it'll be up to the implementation to make it happen. > >> I'm > >> personally not concerned about it, since it seems like there are multiple > >> ways to accomplish this. > >> > >> Note, the discrepancy Matthias pointed out is actually a design bug. The > >> windowed aggregation (like every operation in Streams) produces a "view", > >> which then forms the basis of downstream operations. When we pass the > >> Materialized option to the operation, all we're doing is saying to > >> "materialize" > >> the view (aka, actually store the computed view) and also make it > >> queriable. > >> It would be illegal for the "queriable, materialized view" to differ in > >> any way > >> from the "view". So, it seems we must either propose to emit the empty > >> windows AND make them visible in IQ, or propose NOT to emit the empty > >> windows AND NOT make them visible in IQ. > >> > >> 7) Regarding whether we can extend TimeWindows (or Windows): > >> I've been mulling this over more. I think it's worth asking the question of > >> what these classes even mean. For example, why is SessionWindows a > >> different thing from TimeWindows and UniversalWindows (which are both > >> Windows)? > >> > >> This conversation is extra complicated because of the incomplete and > >> mis-matched class hierarchy, but we can try to look past it for now. > >> > >> It seems like what Time and Universal (and any other Windows > >> implementation) have in common is that the windows are statically > >> enumerable. > >> As a consequence, they can all rely on an aggregation maintenence algorithm > >> that involves enumerating each of the windows and updating it. That > >> also means that their DSL object (TimeWindowedKStream) doesn't need > >> "subtractors" or "mergers", but only "adders"; again, this is a consequence > >> of the fact that the windows are enumerable. > >> > >> In contrast, session windows are data driven, so they are not statically > >> enumerable. Their algorithm has to rely on scans, and to do the scans, > >> it needs to know the "inactivity gap", which needs to be part of the window > >> definition. Likewise, session windows have the property that they need > >> to be merged, so their DSL object also requires mergers. > >> > >> It really seems like your new window definition doesn't fit into either > >> category. It uses a different algorithm, which relies on scans, but it is > >> also fixed in size, so it doesn't need mergers. In this situation, it seems > >> like the safe bet is to just create SessionWindows with no interface and > >> add a separate set of DSL operations and objects. It's a little extra code, > >> but it seems to keep everything tidier and more comprehensible, both > >> for us and for users. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> -John > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, at 10:30, Leah Thomas wrote: > >>> Hi Matthias, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the suggestions, I've updated the KIP and child page > >> accordingly > >>> and addressed some below. > >>> > >>> 1) For the mandatory grace period, we should use a static builder method > >>>> that take two parameters. > >>>> > >>> > >>> That makes sense, I've changed that in the public API. > >>> > >>> Btw: this implementation actually raises an issue for IQ: those empty > >>>> windows would be returned. > >>> > >>> > >>> This is a great point, with the current implementation plan empty windows > >>> would be returned. I think creating a second window store would > >> definitely > >>> work, but there would be more overhead in having two stores and switching > >>> windows between the stores, as well as doing scans in both stores to find > >>> existing windows. There might be a way to do avoid emitting empty windows > >>> without creating a second window store, I'll look more into it. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Leah > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:25 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Thanks for updating the KIP. > >>>> > >>>> Couple of follow up comments: > >>>> > >>>> 1) For the mandatory grace period, we should use a static builder > >> method > >>>> that take two parameters. This provides a better API as user cannot > >>>> forget to set the grace period. Throwing a runtime exception seems not > >>>> to be the best way to handle this case. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2) In Fig.2 you list 10 hopping windows. I believe it should actually > >> be > >>>> more? There first hopping window would be [-6,-4[ and the last one > >> would > >>>> be from [19,29[ -- hence, the cost saving are actually much higher. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 3a) IQ: you are saying that the user need to compute the start time as > >>>> > >>>>> windowSize+the time they're looking at > >>>> > >>>> Should this be "targetTime - windowSize" instead? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 3b) IQ: in you example you say "window size of 10 minutes" with an > >>>> incident at 9:15. > >>>> > >>>>> they're looking for a window with the start time of 8:15. > >>>> > >>>> The example does not seem to add up? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 4) For "Processing Windows": you describe a three step approach: I just > >>>> want to point out, that step (1) is not necessary for each input > >> record, > >>>> because timestamps are not guaranteed to be unique and thus a previous > >>>> record with the same key and timestamp might have create the windows > >>>> already. > >>>> > >>>> Nit: I am also not exactly sure what you mean by step (3) as you use > >> the > >>>> word "send". I guess you mean "put"? > >>>> > >>>> It seem there are actually more details in the sub-page: > >>>> > >>>>> A new record for SlidingWindows will always create two new windows. > >> If > >>>> either of those windows already exist in the windows store, their > >>>> aggregation will simply be updated to include the new record, but no > >>>> duplicate window will be added to the WindowStore. > >>>> > >>>> However, the first and second sentence contradict each other a little > >>>> bit. I think the first sentence is not correct. > >>>> > >>>> Nit: > >>>> > >>>>> For in-order records, the left window will always be empty. > >>>> > >>>> This should be "right window" ? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 5) "Emitting Results": it might be worth to point out, that a > >>>> second/future window of a new record is create with no records, and > >>>> thus, even if it's initialized it won't be emitted. Only if a > >>>> consecutive record falls into the window, the window would be updates > >>>> and the window result (for a window content of one record) would be > >> sent > >>>> downstream. > >>>> > >>>> Again, the sub-page contains this details. Might still be worth to add > >>>> to the top level page, too. > >>>> > >>>> Btw: this implementation actually raises an issue for IQ: those empty > >>>> windows would be returned. Thus I am wondering if we need to use two > >>>> stores internally? One store for actual windows and one store for empty > >>>> windows? If an empty window is updated, it's move to the other store? > >>>> For IQ, we only allow to query the non-empty-window store? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 6) On the sub-page: > >>>> > >>>>> The left window of in-order records and both windows for out-of-order > >>>> records need to be updated with the values of records that have already > >>>> been processed. > >>>> > >>>> Why "both windows for out-of-order records"? IMHO, we don't know how > >>>> many existing windows needs to be updated when processing an > >>>> out-of-order record. Of course, an out-of-order record could not fall > >>>> into any existing window but create two new windows, too. > >>>> > >>>>> Because each record creates one new window that includes itself and > >> one > >>>> window that does not > >>>> > >>>> As state above, this does not seem to hold. I understand why you mean, > >>>> but it would be good to be exact. > >>>> > >>>> Figure 2: You use the term "late" but you mean "out-of-order" I guess > >> -- > >>>> a record is _late_ if it's not processed any longer as the grace period > >>>> passed already. > >>>> > >>>> Figure 2: "Late" should be out-or-order. The example text say a window > >>>> [16,26] should be created but the figure shows the green window as > >> [15,20]. > >>>> > >>>> About the blue window: maybe add not that the blue window contains the > >>>> aggregate we need for the green window, _before_ the new record `a` is > >>>> added to the blue window. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 7) I am not really happy to extend TimeWindows and I think the argument > >>>> about JoinWindows is not the best (IMHO, JoinWindows do it already > >> wrong > >>>> and we just repeat the same mistake). However, it seems our window > >>>> hierarchy is "broken" already and it might be out of scope for this KIP > >>>> to fix it. Hence, I am ok that we bite the bullet for now and clean it > >>>> up later. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -Matthias > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 7/20/20 5:18 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > >>>>> Hi Leah, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the updated KIP. I agree that extending SlidingWindows > >> from > >>>>> Windows is fine for the sake of not introducing more public APIs (and > >>>> their > >>>>> internal xxxImpl classes), and its cons is small enough to tolerate > >> to > >>>> me. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Guozhang > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 1:49 PM Leah Thomas <ltho...@confluent.io> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the KIP. I've updated the KIP page > >>>>>> < > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-450%3A+Sliding+Window+Aggregations+in+the+DSL > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> to address these points and have created a child page > >>>>>> < > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Aggregation+details+for+KIP-450 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> to go more in depth on certain implementation details. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Grace Period:* > >>>>>> I think Sophie raises a good point that the default grace period of > >> 24 > >>>>>> hours is often too long and was chosen when retention time and grace > >>>> period > >>>>>> were the same. For SlidingWindows, I propose we make the grace > >> period > >>>>>> mandatory. To keep formatting consistent with other types of > >> windows, > >>>> grace > >>>>>> period won't be an additional parameter in the #of method, but will > >>>> still > >>>>>> look like it does in other use cases: > >>>>>> .windowedBy(SlidingWindows.of(twentySeconds).grace(fiftySeconds). If > >>>> grace > >>>>>> period isn't properly initialized, an error will be thrown through > >> the > >>>>>> process method. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Storage Layer + Aggregation:* > >>>>>> SlidingWindows will use a WindowStore because computation can be > >> done > >>>> with > >>>>>> the information stored in a WindowStore (window timestamp and > >> value). > >>>> Using > >>>>>> the WindowStore also simplifies computation as SlidingWindows can > >>>> leverage > >>>>>> existing processes. Because we are using a WindowStore, the > >> aggregation > >>>>>> process will be similar to that of a hopping window. As records > >> come in > >>>>>> their value is added to the aggregation that already exists, > >> following > >>>> the > >>>>>> same procedure as hopping windows. The aggregation difference > >> between > >>>>>> SlidingWindows and HoppingWindows comes in creating new windows for > >> a > >>>>>> SlidingWindow, where you need to find the existing records that > >> belong > >>>> to > >>>>>> the new window. This computation is similar to the aggregation in > >>>>>> SessionWindows and requires a scan to the WindowStore to find the > >> window > >>>>>> with the aggregation needed, which will always be pre-computed. The > >> scan > >>>>>> requires creating an iterator, but should have minimal performance > >>>> effects > >>>>>> as this strategy is already implemented in SessionWindows. More > >> details > >>>> on > >>>>>> finding the aggregation that needs to be put in a new window can be > >>>> found > >>>>>> on the implementation page > >>>>>> < > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Aggregation+details+for+KIP-450 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> . > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Extending Windows<TimeWindow>, Windows<Window> or nothing* > >>>>>> Because SlidingWindows are still defined by a windowSize (whereas > >>>>>> SessionWindows are defined purely by data), I think it makes sense > >> to > >>>>>> leverage the existing Window processes instead of creating a new > >> store > >>>> type > >>>>>> that would be very similar to the WindowStore. While it's true that > >> the > >>>>>> #windowsFor method isn't necessary for SlidingWindows, JoinWindows > >> also > >>>>>> extends Windows<Window> and throws an UnsupportedOperationException > >> in > >>>> the > >>>>>> #windowsFor method, which is what SlidingWindows can do. The > >> difference > >>>>>> between extending Windows<TimeWindow> or Windows<Window> is > >> minimal, as > >>>>>> both are ways to pass window parameters. Extending > >> Windows<TimeWindow> > >>>> will > >>>>>> give us more leverage in utilizing existing processes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Emit Strategy* > >>>>>> I would argue that emitting for every update is still the best way > >> to go > >>>>>> for SlidingWindows because it mimics the other types of windows, and > >>>>>> suppression can be leveraged to limit what SlidingWindows emits. > >> While > >>>> some > >>>>>> users may only want to see the last value, others may want to see > >> more, > >>>> and > >>>>>> leaving the emit strategy to emit partial results allows both users > >> to > >>>>>> access what they want. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Additional Features* > >>>>>> Supporting sliding windows inherently, and shifting inefficient > >> hopping > >>>>>> windows to sliding windows, is an interesting idea and could be > >> built on > >>>>>> top of SlidingWindows when they are finished, but right now seems > >> out of > >>>>>> scope for the needs of this KIP. Similarly, including a > >> `subtraction` > >>>>>> feature could have performance improvements, but doesn't seem > >> necessary > >>>> for > >>>>>> the implementation of this KIP. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me know what you think of the updates, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Leah > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:57 AM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Leah! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regarding (1): I'd go farther actually. Making Windows an abstract > >>>>>>> class was a mistake from the beginning that led to us not being > >>>>>>> able to fix a very confusing situation for users around retention > >>>> times, > >>>>>>> final results emitting, etc. Thus, I would not suggest extending > >>>>>>> TimeWindows for sure, but would also not suggest extending Windows. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The very simplest thing to do is follow the example of > >> SessionWindows, > >>>>>>> which is just a completely self-contained class. If we don't mess > >> with > >>>>>>> class inheritance, we won't ever have any of the problems related > >> to > >>>>>>> class inheritance. This is my preferred solution. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Still, Sliding windows has a lot in common with TimeWindows and > >> other > >>>>>>> fixed-size windows, namely that the windows are fixed in size. If > >> we > >>>> want > >>>>>>> to preserve the current two-part windowing API in which you can > >> window > >>>>>>> by either "fixed" or "data driven" modes, I'd suggest we avoid > >>>> increasing > >>>>>>> the blast radius of Windows by taking the opportunity to replace it > >>>> with > >>>>>>> a proper interface and implement that interface instead. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For example: > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9031 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Then, SlidingWindows would just implement FixedSizeWindowDefinition > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ====== > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regarding (2), it seems more straightforward as a user of Streams > >>>>>>> to just have one mental model. _All_ of our aggregation operations > >>>>>>> follow an eager emission model, in which we just emit an update > >>>> whenever > >>>>>>> an update is available. We already provided Suppression to > >> explicitly > >>>>>> apply > >>>>>>> different update semantics in the case it's required. Why should we > >>>>>> define > >>>>>>> a snowflake operation with completely different semantics from > >>>> everything > >>>>>>> else? I.e., systems are generally easier to use when they follow a > >> few > >>>>>>> simple, composable rules than when they have a lot of different, > >>>> specific > >>>>>>> rules. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ====== > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> New point: (4): > >>>>>>> It would be nice to include some examples of user code that would > >> use > >>>> the > >>>>>>> new API, which should include: > >>>>>>> 1. using the DSL with the sliding window definition > >>>>>>> 2. accessing the stored results of a sliding window aggregation > >> via IQ > >>>>>>> 3. defining a custom processor to access sliding windows in a store > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It generally helps reviewers wrap their heads around the proposal, > >> as > >>>>>> well > >>>>>>> as shaking out any design issues that would otherwise only come up > >>>> during > >>>>>>> implementation/testing/review. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks again for the awesome proposal! > >>>>>>> -John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, at 12:31, Guozhang Wang wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hello Leah, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the nice written KIP. A few thoughts: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1) I echo the other reviewer's comments regarding the typing: why > >>>>>>> extending > >>>>>>>> TimeWindow instead of just extending Window? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2) I also feel that emitting policy for this type of windowing > >>>>>>> aggregation > >>>>>>>> may be different from the existing ones. Existing emitting policy > >> is > >>>>>> very > >>>>>>>> simple: emit every time when window get updates, and emit every > >> time > >>>> on > >>>>>>>> out-of-ordering data within grace period, this is because for > >>>>>>> time-windows > >>>>>>>> the window close time is strictly depend on the window start time > >>>> which > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> fixed, while for session-windows although the window open/close > >> time > >>>> is > >>>>>>>> also data-dependent it is relatively infrequent compared to the > >>>>>>>> sliding-windows. For this KIP, since each new data would cause a > >>>>>>>> new sliding-window, the num. windows maintained logically could be > >>>> much > >>>>>>>> larger and hence emitting on each update may be too aggressive. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 3) Although KIP itself should be focusing on user face > >> interfaces, I'd > >>>>>>>> suggest we create a children page of KIP-450 discussing about its > >>>>>>>> implementations as well, since some of that may drive the > >> interface > >>>>>>> design. > >>>>>>>> E.g. personally I think having a combiner interface in addition to > >>>>>>>> aggregator would be useful but that's based on my 2cents about the > >>>>>>>> implementation design (I once created a child page describing it: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Optimize+Windowed+Aggregation > >>>>>>>> ). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Guozhang > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:31 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io > >>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Leah, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for the KIP! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Here is my feedback: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. The KIP would benefit from some code examples that show how > >> to use > >>>>>>>>> sliding windows in aggregations. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. The different sliding windows in Figure 1 and 2 are really > >> hard to > >>>>>>>>> distinguish. Could you please try to make them graphically better > >>>>>>>>> distinguishable? You could try to draw the frames of consecutive > >>>>>>>>> windows shifted to each other. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with Matthias, that extending Windows<TimeWindow> > >> does not > >>>>>>>>> seem to be the best approach. What would be the result of > >>>>>>>>> windowsFor()? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. In the section "Public Interfaces" you should remove > >>>>>> implementation > >>>>>>>>> details like private constructors and private fields. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Do we need a new store interface or can we use WindowStore? > >> Some > >>>>>>>>> words about that would be informative. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 6. @Matthias, if the subtrator is not strictly needed, I would > >> skip > >>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>> for now and add it later. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 7. I also agree that having a section that describes how to > >> handle > >>>>>>>>> out-of-order records would be good to understand what is still > >>>>>> missing > >>>>>>>>> and what we can reuse. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Bruno > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 9:16 PM Matthias J. Sax < > >> mj...@apache.org> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Leah, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update. However, it does not completely answer > >> my > >>>>>>>>> question. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In our current window implementations, we emit a window result > >>>>>> update > >>>>>>>>>> record (ie, early/partial result) for each input record. When an > >>>>>>>>>> out-of-order record arrives, we just update to corresponding old > >>>>>>> window > >>>>>>>>>> and emit another update. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It's unclear from the KIP if you propose the same emit > >> strategy? -- > >>>>>>> For > >>>>>>>>>> sliding windows it might be worth to consider to use a different > >>>>>> emit > >>>>>>>>>> strategy and only support emitting the final result only (ie, > >> after > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> grace period passed)? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Boyang, also raises a good point that relates to my point from > >>>>>> above > >>>>>>>>>> about pre-aggregations and storage layout. Our current time > >> windows > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> all pre-aggregated and stored in parallel. We can also lookup > >>>>>> windows > >>>>>>>>>> efficiently, as we can compute the windowed-key given the input > >>>>>>> record > >>>>>>>>>> key and timestamp based on the window definition. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> However, for sliding windows, window boundaries are data > >> dependent > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> thus we cannot compute them upfront. Thus, how can we "find" > >>>>>> existing > >>>>>>>>>> window efficiently? Furthermore, out-of-order data would create > >> new > >>>>>>>>>> windows in the past and we need to be able to handle this case. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thus, to handle out-of-order data correctly, we need to store > >> all > >>>>>> raw > >>>>>>>>>> input events. Additionally, we could also store pre-aggregated > >>>>>>> results > >>>>>>>>>> if we thinks it's benfitial. -- If we apply "emit only final > >>>>>> results" > >>>>>>>>>> strategy, storing pre-aggregated result would not be necessary > >>>>>>> though. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Btw: for sliding windows it might also be useful to consider > >>>>>> allowing > >>>>>>>>>> users to supply a `Subtractor` -- this subtractor could be > >> applied > >>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> the current window result (in case we store it) if a record > >> drops > >>>>>>> out of > >>>>>>>>>> the window. Of course, not all aggregation functions are > >>>>>> subtractable > >>>>>>>>>> and we can consider this as a follow up task, too, and not > >> include > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> this KIP for now. Thoughts? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I was also thinking about the type hierarchy. I am not sure if > >>>>>>> extending > >>>>>>>>>> TimeWindow is the best approach? For TimeWindows, we can > >>>>>> pre-compute > >>>>>>>>>> window boundaries (cf `windowsFor()`) while for a sliding window > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> boundaries are data dependent. Session windows are also data > >>>>>>> dependent > >>>>>>>>>> and thus they don't inherit from TimeWindow (Maybe check out the > >>>>>> KIP > >>>>>>>>>> that added session windows? It could provides some good > >> insights.) > >>>>>>> -- I > >>>>>>>>>> believe the same rational applies to sliding windows? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -Matthias > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/20 12:47 PM, Boyang Chen wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leah and Sophie for the KIP. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. I'm a bit surprised that we don't have an advance time. > >> Could > >>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>> elaborate how the storage layer is structured? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. IIUC, there will be extra cost in terms of fetching > >>>>>> aggregation > >>>>>>>>> results, > >>>>>>>>>>> since we couldn't pre-aggregate until the user asks for it. > >> Would > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> good > >>>>>>>>>>> to also discuss it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. We haven't discussed the possibility of supporting sliding > >>>>>>> windows > >>>>>>>>>>> inherently. For a user who actually uses a hopping window, > >>>>>> Streams > >>>>>>>>> could > >>>>>>>>>>> detect such an inefficiency doing a window_size/advance_time > >>>>>> ratio > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> reach > >>>>>>>>>>> a conclusion on whether the write amplification is too high > >>>>>>> compared > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>> some configured threshold. The benefit of doing so is that > >>>>>> existing > >>>>>>>>> Streams > >>>>>>>>>>> users don't need to change their code, learn a new API, but > >> only > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> upgrade > >>>>>>>>>>> Streams library to get benefits for their inefficient hopping > >>>>>>> window > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation. There might be some compatibility issues for > >>>>>> sure, > >>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>> worth listing them out for trade-off. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Boyang > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:40 PM Leah Thomas < > >>>>>> ltho...@confluent.io > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Matthias, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. I added the following to the > >>>>>> Propose > >>>>>>>>> Changes > >>>>>>>>>>>> section of the KIP: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Records that come out of order will be processed the same way > >>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> in-order > >>>>>>>>>>>> records, as long as they fall within the grace period. Any new > >>>>>>> windows > >>>>>>>>>>>> created by the late record will still be created, and the > >>>>>> existing > >>>>>>>>> windows > >>>>>>>>>>>> that are changed by the late record will be updated. Any > >> record > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> falls > >>>>>>>>>>>> outside of the grace period (either user defined or default) > >>>>>> will > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>> discarded. " > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> All the best, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Leah > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 9:47 PM Matthias J. Sax < > >>>>>> mj...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Leah, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks a lot for the KIP. Very well written. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The KIP does not talk about the handling of out-of-order data > >>>>>>> though. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you propose to address this? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/20 5:33 PM, Leah Thomas wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to kick-off the discussion for KIP-450, adding > >>>>>> sliding > >>>>>>>>> window > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aggregation support to Kafka Streams. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-450%3A+Sliding+Window+Aggregations+in+the+DSL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know what you think, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leah > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> -- Guozhang > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > Attachments: > * signature.asc
