[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7995?focusedWorklogId=296685&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-296685
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on BEAM-7995:
----------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 17/Aug/19 01:00
Start Date: 17/Aug/19 01:00
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: aaltay commented on pull request #9364: BEAM-7995:
python PGBKCVOperation using wrong timestamp
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9364#discussion_r314927714
##########
File path: sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/operations.py
##########
@@ -886,7 +886,7 @@ def output_key(self, wkey, accumulator):
if windows is 0:
self.output(_globally_windowed_value.with_value((key, value)))
else:
- self.output(WindowedValue((key, value), windows[0].end, windows))
+ self.output(WindowedValue((key, value), windows[0].max_timestamp(),
windows))
Review comment:
You are right. I read this as just 'max_timestamp()', did not realize it is
the max timestamp for the window. Your change looks correct.
Referencing your email
(https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ad42c55ed0212cb18b2b29bfc3dddfb47b8cb9f3358583775d0da37b@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E),
this needs to be a shared definition between Python and Java. @lukecwik could
you confirm that an element in a window should have a timestamp < window.end or
could it be <= window.end ?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 296685)
Time Spent: 50m (was: 40m)
> IllegalStateException: TimestampCombiner moved element from to earlier time
> in Python
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-7995
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7995
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: sdk-py-core
> Reporter: Hai Lu
> Assignee: Hai Lu
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 50m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I'm looking into a bug I found internally when using Beam portable API
> (Python) on our own Samza runner.
>
> The pipeline looks something like this:
>
> (p
> | 'read' >> ReadFromKafka(cluster="tracking", topic="PageViewEvent")
> | 'transform' >> beam.Map(lambda event: process_event(event))
> | 'window' >> beam.WindowInto(FixedWindows(15))
> | 'group' >> *beam.CombinePerKey(beam.combiners.CountCombineFn())*
> ...
>
> The problem comes from the combiners which cause the following exception on
> Java side:
>
> Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: TimestampCombiner moved element
> from 2019-08-15T03:34:*45.000*Z to earlier time 2019-08-15T03:34:*44.999*Z
> for window [2019-08-15T03:34:30.000Z..2019-08-15T03:34:*45.000*Z)
> at
> org.apache.beam.runners.core.WatermarkHold.shift(WatermarkHold.java:117)
> at
> org.apache.beam.runners.core.WatermarkHold.addElementHold(WatermarkHold.java:154)
> at
> org.apache.beam.runners.core.WatermarkHold.addHolds(WatermarkHold.java:98)
> at
> org.apache.beam.runners.core.ReduceFnRunner.processElement(ReduceFnRunner.java:605)
> at
> org.apache.beam.runners.core.ReduceFnRunner.processElements(ReduceFnRunner.java:349)
> at
> org.apache.beam.runners.core.GroupAlsoByWindowViaWindowSetNewDoFn.processElement(GroupAlsoByWindowViaWindowSetNewDoFn.java:136)
>
> The exception happens here
> [https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/runners/core-java/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/runners/core/WatermarkHold.java#L116]
> when we check the shifted timestamp to ensure it's before the timestamp.
>
> if (shifted.isBefore(timestamp)) {
> throw new IllegalStateException(
> String.format(
> "TimestampCombiner moved element from %s to earlier time %s for
> window %s",
> BoundedWindow.formatTimestamp(timestamp),
> BoundedWindow.formatTimestamp(shifted),
> window));
> }
>
> As you can see from the exception, the "shifted" is "XXX 44.999" while the
> "timestamp" is "XXX 45.000". The "44.999" is coming from
> [TimestampCombiner.END_OF_WINDOW|https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/sdks/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/windowing/TimestampCombiner.java#L116]:
>
> @Override
> public Instant merge(BoundedWindow intoWindow, Iterable<? extends
> Instant> mergingTimestamps) {
> return intoWindow.maxTimestamp();
> }
>
> where intoWindow.maxTimestamp() is:
>
> /** Returns the largest timestamp that can be included in this window. */
> @Override
> public Instant maxTimestamp() {
> *// end not inclusive*
> return *end.minus(1)*;
> }
>
> Hence, the "44.*999*".
>
> And the "45.000" comes from the Python side when the combiner output results
> as pre GBK operation:
> [operations.py#PGBKCVOperation#output_key|https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/operations.py#L889]
>
> if windows is 0:
> self.output(_globally_windowed_value.with_value((key, value)))
> else:
> self.output(WindowedValue((key, value), *windows[0].end*, windows))
>
> Here when we generate the window value, the timestamp is assigned to the
> closed interval end (45.000) as opposed to open interval end (44.999)
>
> Clearly the "end of window" definition is a bit inconsistent across Python
> and Java. I'm yet to try this on other runner so not sure whether this is
> only an issue for our Samza runner. I tend to think this is a bug but would
> like to confirm with you. If this has not been an issue for other runners,
> where did I potentially do wrong.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.14#76016)
