[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15297?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17750495#comment-17750495
 ] 

A. Sophie Blee-Goldman commented on KAFKA-15297:
------------------------------------------------

Were you able to (re)produce this issue? I'm a bit surprised because I always 
thought the state stores were maintained in strict topological order, both when 
building them initially and then when registering them.

The stores are flushed in the order that they are registered, which corresponds 
to the order they are added to the topology, which in turn *should* reflect the 
topological order of the attached processor nodes.

The original ordering comes from InternalTopologyBuilder#build and the 
topologically-sorted nodeFactories map. This builds up the stateStoreMap in 
topological order, no?

> Cache flush order might not be topological order 
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: KAFKA-15297
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15297
>             Project: Kafka
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: streams
>    Affects Versions: 3.4.0
>            Reporter: Bruno Cadonna
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: minimal_example.png
>
>
> The flush order of the state store caches in Kafka Streams might not 
> correspond to the topological order of the state stores in the topology. The 
> order depends on how the processors and state stores are added to the 
> topology. 
> In some cases downstream state stores might be flushed before upstream state 
> stores. That means, that during a commit records in upstream caches might end 
> up in downstream caches that have already been flushed during the same 
> commit. If a crash happens at that point, those records in the downstream 
> caches are lost. Those records are lost for two reasons:
> 1. Records in caches are only changelogged after they are flushed from the 
> cache. However, the downstream caches have already been flushed and they will 
> not be flushed again during the same commit.
> 2. The offsets of the input records that caused the records that now are 
> blocked in the downstream caches are committed during the same commit and so 
> they will not be re-processed after the crash.
> An example for a topology where the flush order of the caches is wrong is the 
> following:
> {code:java}
> final String inputTopic1 = "inputTopic1";
> final String inputTopic2 = "inputTopic2";
> final String outputTopic1 = "outputTopic1";
> final String processorName = "processor1";
> final String stateStoreA = "stateStoreA";
> final String stateStoreB = "stateStoreB";
> final String stateStoreC = "stateStoreC";
> streamsBuilder.stream(inputTopic2, Consumed.with(Serdes.String(), 
> Serdes.String()))
>     .process(
>         () -> new Processor<String, String, String, String>() {
>             private ProcessorContext<String, String> context;
>             @Override
>             public void init(ProcessorContext<String, String> context) {
>                 this.context = context;
>             }
>             @Override
>             public void process(Record<String, String> record) {
>                 context.forward(record);
>             }
>             @Override
>             public void close() {}
>         },
>         Named.as("processor1")
>     )
>     .to(outputTopic1, Produced.with(Serdes.String(), Serdes.String()));
>     streamsBuilder.stream(inputTopic1, Consumed.with(Serdes.String(), 
> Serdes.String()))
>         .toTable(Materialized.<String, String, KeyValueStore<Bytes, 
> byte[]>>as(stateStoreA).withKeySerde(Serdes.String()).withValueSerde(Serdes.String()))
>         .mapValues(value -> value, Materialized.<String, String, 
> KeyValueStore<Bytes, 
> byte[]>>as(stateStoreB).withKeySerde(Serdes.String()).withValueSerde(Serdes.String()))
>         .mapValues(value -> value, Materialized.<String, String, 
> KeyValueStore<Bytes, 
> byte[]>>as(stateStoreC).withKeySerde(Serdes.String()).withValueSerde(Serdes.String()))
>         .toStream()
>         .to(outputTopic1, Produced.with(Serdes.String(), Serdes.String()));
>     final Topology topology = streamsBuilder.build(streamsConfiguration);
>     topology.connectProcessorAndStateStores(processorName, stateStoreC);
> {code}
> This code results in the attached topology.
> In the topology {{processor1}} is connected to {{stateStoreC}}. If 
> {{processor1}} is added to the topology before the other processors, i.e., if 
> the right branch of the topology is added before the left branch as in the 
> code above, the cache of {{stateStoreC}} is flushed before the caches of 
> {{stateStoreA}} and {{stateStoreB}}.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to