Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
Hi, Justine, Thanks for the updated KIP. The new interface seems cleaner to me. +1 Jun On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:14 PM Justine Olshan wrote: > Hello all, > I've just added the proposed changes to the KIP page > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > . > The PR has been updated as well. https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6997 > . > > The idea is that there will just be a separate void method to change the > partition, and the partition method will be left alone. > > Please take a look when you get a chance and let me know what you think. > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:31 AM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > Hi Jun, > > I agree that it is confusing. I think there might be a way to not > > deprecate the partition method after all, and instead create a separate > > method to perform the necessary actions on new batches. I will try to > > update the KIP with the details as soon as I can. > > > > Thank you, > > Justine > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jun Rao wrote: > > > >> Hi, Justine, > >> > >> Thanks for the KIP. It looks good overall. Just a followup comment. > >> > >> Should we mark Partitioner.partition() as deprecated? If someone tries > to > >> implement a new Partitioner on the new interface. They will see both > >> partition() and computePartition(). It's not clear to them which one > they > >> should be using and which one takes precedence. > >> > >> Jun > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:39 AM Justine Olshan > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks everyone for reviewing and voting! > >> > > >> > I'm marking this KIP as accepted. > >> > There were 4 binding votes from Colin, Gwen, David and Bill, and 3 > >> > non-binding votes from Stanislav, M, and Mickael. > >> > There were no +0 or -1 votes. > >> > > >> > Thanks again, > >> > Justine > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:10 AM Bill Bejeck > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks for the KIP, looks like a great addition. > >> > > > >> > > +1 (binding) > >> > > > >> > > -Bill > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:55 AM Mickael Maison < > >> mickael.mai...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > +1 (non binding) > >> > > > Thanks for the KIP! > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:23 AM David Arthur < > >> davidart...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > +1 binding, looks like a nice improvement. Thanks! > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -David > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Justine Olshan < > >> jols...@confluent.io > >> > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hello all, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I wanted to let you all know the KIP has been updated. The > >> > > > > > ComputedPartition class has been removed in favor of simply > >> > returning > >> > > > an > >> > > > > > integer to represent the record's partition. > >> > > > > > In short, the implications of this change mean that keyed > >> records > >> > > will > >> > > > also > >> > > > > > trigger a change in the sticky partition. This was done for a > >> case > >> > in > >> > > > which > >> > > > > > there may be keyed and non-keyed records. > >> > > > > > Upon testing, this did not significantly change the latency > for > >> > > records > >> > > > > > with keyed values. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you, > >> > > > > > Justine > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:07 AM M. Manna > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1(na) > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski < > >> > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks! > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira < > >> > g...@confluent.io> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan < > >> > > > jols...@confluent.io> > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky > >> > Partitioner. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > >> > > > > > > > > > Justine Olshan > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > > > Gwen Shapira > >> > > > > > > > > Product Manager | Confluent > >> > > > > > > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > >> > > > > > > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > > Best,
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
Hello all, I've just added the proposed changes to the KIP page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner . The PR has been updated as well. https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6997. The idea is that there will just be a separate void method to change the partition, and the partition method will be left alone. Please take a look when you get a chance and let me know what you think. Thank you, Justine On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:31 AM Justine Olshan wrote: > Hi Jun, > I agree that it is confusing. I think there might be a way to not > deprecate the partition method after all, and instead create a separate > method to perform the necessary actions on new batches. I will try to > update the KIP with the details as soon as I can. > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jun Rao wrote: > >> Hi, Justine, >> >> Thanks for the KIP. It looks good overall. Just a followup comment. >> >> Should we mark Partitioner.partition() as deprecated? If someone tries to >> implement a new Partitioner on the new interface. They will see both >> partition() and computePartition(). It's not clear to them which one they >> should be using and which one takes precedence. >> >> Jun >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:39 AM Justine Olshan >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks everyone for reviewing and voting! >> > >> > I'm marking this KIP as accepted. >> > There were 4 binding votes from Colin, Gwen, David and Bill, and 3 >> > non-binding votes from Stanislav, M, and Mickael. >> > There were no +0 or -1 votes. >> > >> > Thanks again, >> > Justine >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:10 AM Bill Bejeck wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks for the KIP, looks like a great addition. >> > > >> > > +1 (binding) >> > > >> > > -Bill >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:55 AM Mickael Maison < >> mickael.mai...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > +1 (non binding) >> > > > Thanks for the KIP! >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:23 AM David Arthur < >> davidart...@apache.org> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > +1 binding, looks like a nice improvement. Thanks! >> > > > > >> > > > > -David >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Justine Olshan < >> jols...@confluent.io >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hello all, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I wanted to let you all know the KIP has been updated. The >> > > > > > ComputedPartition class has been removed in favor of simply >> > returning >> > > > an >> > > > > > integer to represent the record's partition. >> > > > > > In short, the implications of this change mean that keyed >> records >> > > will >> > > > also >> > > > > > trigger a change in the sticky partition. This was done for a >> case >> > in >> > > > which >> > > > > > there may be keyed and non-keyed records. >> > > > > > Upon testing, this did not significantly change the latency for >> > > records >> > > > > > with keyed values. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you, >> > > > > > Justine >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:07 AM M. Manna >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1(na) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski < >> > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks! >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira < >> > g...@confluent.io> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan < >> > > > jols...@confluent.io> >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hello all, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky >> > Partitioner. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thank you, >> > > > > > > > > > Justine Olshan >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > Gwen Shapira >> > > > > > > > > Product Manager | Confluent >> > > > > > > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap >> > > > > > > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > > > Stanislav >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
Hi Jun, I agree that it is confusing. I think there might be a way to not deprecate the partition method after all, and instead create a separate method to perform the necessary actions on new batches. I will try to update the KIP with the details as soon as I can. Thank you, Justine On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jun Rao wrote: > Hi, Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. It looks good overall. Just a followup comment. > > Should we mark Partitioner.partition() as deprecated? If someone tries to > implement a new Partitioner on the new interface. They will see both > partition() and computePartition(). It's not clear to them which one they > should be using and which one takes precedence. > > Jun > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:39 AM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > Thanks everyone for reviewing and voting! > > > > I'm marking this KIP as accepted. > > There were 4 binding votes from Colin, Gwen, David and Bill, and 3 > > non-binding votes from Stanislav, M, and Mickael. > > There were no +0 or -1 votes. > > > > Thanks again, > > Justine > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:10 AM Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, looks like a great addition. > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:55 AM Mickael Maison < > mickael.mai...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non binding) > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:23 AM David Arthur > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 binding, looks like a nice improvement. Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Justine Olshan < > jols...@confluent.io > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to let you all know the KIP has been updated. The > > > > > > ComputedPartition class has been removed in favor of simply > > returning > > > > an > > > > > > integer to represent the record's partition. > > > > > > In short, the implications of this change mean that keyed records > > > will > > > > also > > > > > > trigger a change in the sticky partition. This was done for a > case > > in > > > > which > > > > > > there may be keyed and non-keyed records. > > > > > > Upon testing, this did not significantly change the latency for > > > records > > > > > > with keyed values. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:07 AM M. Manna > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1(na) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski < > > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira < > > g...@confluent.io> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan < > > > > jols...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky > > Partitioner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Gwen Shapira > > > > > > > > > Product Manager | Confluent > > > > > > > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > > > > > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
Hi, Justine, Thanks for the KIP. It looks good overall. Just a followup comment. Should we mark Partitioner.partition() as deprecated? If someone tries to implement a new Partitioner on the new interface. They will see both partition() and computePartition(). It's not clear to them which one they should be using and which one takes precedence. Jun On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:39 AM Justine Olshan wrote: > Thanks everyone for reviewing and voting! > > I'm marking this KIP as accepted. > There were 4 binding votes from Colin, Gwen, David and Bill, and 3 > non-binding votes from Stanislav, M, and Mickael. > There were no +0 or -1 votes. > > Thanks again, > Justine > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:10 AM Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP, looks like a great addition. > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > -Bill > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:55 AM Mickael Maison > > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non binding) > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:23 AM David Arthur > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 binding, looks like a nice improvement. Thanks! > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Justine Olshan > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to let you all know the KIP has been updated. The > > > > > ComputedPartition class has been removed in favor of simply > returning > > > an > > > > > integer to represent the record's partition. > > > > > In short, the implications of this change mean that keyed records > > will > > > also > > > > > trigger a change in the sticky partition. This was done for a case > in > > > which > > > > > there may be keyed and non-keyed records. > > > > > Upon testing, this did not significantly change the latency for > > records > > > > > with keyed values. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:07 AM M. Manna > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1(na) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski < > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira < > g...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan < > > > jols...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky > Partitioner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Gwen Shapira > > > > > > > > Product Manager | Confluent > > > > > > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > > > > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
Thanks everyone for reviewing and voting! I'm marking this KIP as accepted. There were 4 binding votes from Colin, Gwen, David and Bill, and 3 non-binding votes from Stanislav, M, and Mickael. There were no +0 or -1 votes. Thanks again, Justine On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:10 AM Bill Bejeck wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, looks like a great addition. > > +1 (binding) > > -Bill > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:55 AM Mickael Maison > wrote: > > > +1 (non binding) > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:23 AM David Arthur > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 binding, looks like a nice improvement. Thanks! > > > > > > -David > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > I wanted to let you all know the KIP has been updated. The > > > > ComputedPartition class has been removed in favor of simply returning > > an > > > > integer to represent the record's partition. > > > > In short, the implications of this change mean that keyed records > will > > also > > > > trigger a change in the sticky partition. This was done for a case in > > which > > > > there may be keyed and non-keyed records. > > > > Upon testing, this did not significantly change the latency for > records > > > > with keyed values. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:07 AM M. Manna wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1(na) > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski < > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan < > > jols...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Gwen Shapira > > > > > > > Product Manager | Confluent > > > > > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > > > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
Thanks for the KIP, looks like a great addition. +1 (binding) -Bill On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:55 AM Mickael Maison wrote: > +1 (non binding) > Thanks for the KIP! > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:23 AM David Arthur > wrote: > > > > +1 binding, looks like a nice improvement. Thanks! > > > > -David > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I wanted to let you all know the KIP has been updated. The > > > ComputedPartition class has been removed in favor of simply returning > an > > > integer to represent the record's partition. > > > In short, the implications of this change mean that keyed records will > also > > > trigger a change in the sticky partition. This was done for a case in > which > > > there may be keyed and non-keyed records. > > > Upon testing, this did not significantly change the latency for records > > > with keyed values. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:07 AM M. Manna wrote: > > > > > > > +1(na) > > > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski < > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan < > jols...@confluent.io> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Gwen Shapira > > > > > > Product Manager | Confluent > > > > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best, > > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
+1 (non binding) Thanks for the KIP! On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:23 AM David Arthur wrote: > > +1 binding, looks like a nice improvement. Thanks! > > -David > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Justine Olshan wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I wanted to let you all know the KIP has been updated. The > > ComputedPartition class has been removed in favor of simply returning an > > integer to represent the record's partition. > > In short, the implications of this change mean that keyed records will also > > trigger a change in the sticky partition. This was done for a case in which > > there may be keyed and non-keyed records. > > Upon testing, this did not significantly change the latency for records > > with keyed values. > > > > Thank you, > > Justine > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:07 AM M. Manna wrote: > > > > > +1(na) > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski < > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Gwen Shapira > > > > > Product Manager | Confluent > > > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best, > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
+1 binding, looks like a nice improvement. Thanks! -David On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Justine Olshan wrote: > Hello all, > > I wanted to let you all know the KIP has been updated. The > ComputedPartition class has been removed in favor of simply returning an > integer to represent the record's partition. > In short, the implications of this change mean that keyed records will also > trigger a change in the sticky partition. This was done for a case in which > there may be keyed and non-keyed records. > Upon testing, this did not significantly change the latency for records > with keyed values. > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:07 AM M. Manna wrote: > > > +1(na) > > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski < > stanis...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Gwen Shapira > > > > Product Manager | Confluent > > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best, > > > Stanislav > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
Hello all, I wanted to let you all know the KIP has been updated. The ComputedPartition class has been removed in favor of simply returning an integer to represent the record's partition. In short, the implications of this change mean that keyed records will also trigger a change in the sticky partition. This was done for a case in which there may be keyed and non-keyed records. Upon testing, this did not significantly change the latency for records with keyed values. Thank you, Justine On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:07 AM M. Manna wrote: > +1(na) > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner. > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Gwen Shapira > > > Product Manager | Confluent > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best, > > Stanislav > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
+1(na) On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 22:17, Stanislav Kozlovski wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks! > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner. > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > -- > > Gwen Shapira > > Product Manager | Confluent > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > > > -- > Best, > Stanislav >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
+1 (non-binding) Thanks! On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Gwen Shapira wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner. > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > Thank you, > > Justine Olshan > > > > -- > Gwen Shapira > Product Manager | Confluent > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > Follow us: Twitter | blog > -- Best, Stanislav
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
+1 (binding) Thank you for the KIP. This was long awaited. On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Justine Olshan wrote: > > Hello all, > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > Thank you, > Justine Olshan -- Gwen Shapira Product Manager | Confluent 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap Follow us: Twitter | blog
Re: [VOTE] KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner
+1 (binding). Thanks, Justine! ComputedPartition#get probably should be ComputedPartition#partition or something. We typically name accessors the same as the variables that are being accessed. As we discussed in the other thread, one minor addition that might make this KIP even better is a StickyRoundRobinPartitioner class that just implements the sticky behavior regardless of whether the key is null or not. It would just be a standalone custom partitioner class that could be configured if people wanted this. best, Colin On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, at 17:15, Justine Olshan wrote: > Hello all, > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-480 : Sticky Partitioner. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > Thank you, > Justine Olshan >
