[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8377?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16852686#comment-16852686
 ] 

Matthias J. Sax commented on KAFKA-8377:
----------------------------------------

Not sure if I can follow. The decision to materialize or not, is made before we 
start the application, but while building the `Topology` (please correct my if 
I am wrong). However, `KTableValueGetterSupplier` is only used at runtime and 
cannot change the decision we made before any longer?

Or do you refer to `KTableImpl#valueGetterSupplier()` – maybe we could do the 
check there and force materialization of the parent KTable for this case, 
similar to forcing materialization of source KTables?

Btw: while digging into the code, I found that we have classes 
`KTableMaterializedValueGetterSupplier` and `KTableSourceValueGetterSupplier` 
that are basically the same – might be worth to remove one as side cleanup with 
this ticket.

> KTable#transformValue might lead to incorrect result in joins
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: KAFKA-8377
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8377
>             Project: Kafka
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: streams
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>            Reporter: Matthias J. Sax
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: newbie++
>
> Kafka Streams uses an optimization to not materialize every result KTable. If 
> a non-materialized KTable is input to a join, the lookup into the table 
> results in a lookup of the parents table plus a call to the operator. For 
> example,
> {code:java}
> KTable nonMaterialized = materializedTable.filter(...);
> KTable table2 = ...
> table2.join(nonMaterialized,...){code}
> If there is a table2 input record, the lookup to the other side is performed 
> as a lookup into materializedTable plus applying the filter().
> For stateless operation like filter, this is safe. However, 
> #transformValues() might have an attached state store. Hence, when an input 
> record r is processed by #transformValues() with current state S, it might 
> produce an output record r' (that is not materialized). When the join later 
> does a lookup to get r from the parent table, there is no guarantee that 
> #transformValues() again produces r' because its state might not be the same 
> any longer.
> Hence, it seems to be required, to always materialize the result of a 
> KTable#transformValues() operation if there is state. Note, that if there 
> would be a consecutive filter() after tranformValue(), it would also be ok to 
> materialize the filter() result. Furthermore, if there is no downstream 
> join(), materialization is also not required.
> Basically, it seems to be unsafe to apply `KTableValueGetter` on a stateful 
> #transformValues()` operator.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to