[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12845?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17352111#comment-17352111
]
Pedro Gontijo commented on KAFKA-12845:
---------------------------------------
Thanks for the reply [~mjsax]
I see what you are saying but that is not the old behavior.
Before K10277 the join-key could be null without dropping the record and just
pushing it forward.
See lines 69 and 70 from this diff
[https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9186/files#diff-c488ac95d9919270502bd7b52f66147612353d7e8e957233093d3c777fb044a7L69-R70]
> Rollback change which requires join key to be non null on
> KStream->GlobalKTable
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-12845
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12845
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: streams
> Affects Versions: 2.7.0
> Reporter: Pedro Gontijo
> Priority: Major
>
> As part of [KAFKA-10277|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-10277]
> the behavior for KStream->GlobalKtable joins was changed to require non null
> join keys.
> But it seems reasonable that not every record will have an existing
> relationship (and hence a key) with the join globalktable. Think about a
> User>Car for instance, or PageView>Product. An empty/zero key could be
> returned by the KeyMapper but that will make a totally unnecessary search
> into the store.
> I do not think that makes sense for any GlobalKtable join (inner or left) but
> for left join it sounds even more strange.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
