Re: Performance Testing Next Steps

Just got a chance to look this over. I don't have anything to add, but I'm pretty excited to follow this project. Have the JIRAs been filed since you shared the doc? On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Jason Kuster < jasonkus...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Hey all, just wanted to pop this up

Re: [DISCUSS] Per-Key Watermark Maintenance

I think that a per-key watermark is not just consistent with the model, but also there's an argument to be made that it is the correct way to conceive of watermarks in Beam. The way we currently hold watermarks inside of ReduceFnRunner is via a WatermarkHold, which is set per-key. As a result, the

Re: Introduction

Hi Davor, Jean-Baptiste, Many thanks! Roberto Il giorno mar 28 feb 2017 alle 07:44 Jean-Baptiste Onofré ha scritto: Welcome aboard !! Looking for your contributions ! Regards JB On 02/27/2017 11:51 PM, Roberto Bentivoglio wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I am a big fan of

Re: [DISCUSS] Per-Key Watermark Maintenance

Following up on what Kenn said, it seems like the idea of a per-key watermark is logically consistent with Beam model. Each runner already chooses how to approximate the model-level concept of the per-key watermark. The list Kenn had could be extended with things ilke: 4. A runner that assumes

Re: [BEAM-301] Add a Beam SQL DSL

Thanks @Tyler, @JB. The first question for me is how it's used, a SQL prompt like StormSQL, or the DSL API in Flink. In my project, it goes with the 1st one as it's targeted on self-service for analyst. looks odd for me to mix Java code and SQL string. Regarding to the scope, that's a good point

Re: [BEAM-301] Add a Beam SQL DSL

Hi Mingmin, Thanks for writing it up. I haven't had the chance to start work on it. Happy to help on tasks for building it. Feel free to assign BEAN-301 to yourself. On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Tyler Akidau wrote: > Hi Mingmin, > > Thanks for your interest

Re: Beam join with double stream join key

Hi, It looks like you may have tried to attach an image or something, but it did not come through the mailing list. Can you please try again? This is what we see: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f4a1ce5291428a70ecd54d3eefff56daf2f32b7a558f575eddc3729e@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E Dan On Tue,

Re: [BEAM-301] Add a Beam SQL DSL

Hi Mingmin, Thanks for your interest in helping out on this task, and for your initial proposal. I'm also very happy to work with you on this, and excited to see some progress made here. Added a few more comments on the doc, but will summarize them below as well. As far as the DSL point goes, I

Re: Release 0.6.0

Thank you all. I will wait for release blocking issues to be closed. Sergio, thank you for the information. I will document the friction points during this release process. Following the release we can start a discussion about how to fix those. Ahmet On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Aljoscha

Re: Release 0.6.0

That was my mistake, sorry for that. I should have tagged [1] as a blocker because leaking state is probably a bad idea. At least then people would be aware and we could have discussed whether it is a blocker. There is already an open PR for this now. [1]

Beam join with double stream join key

hello, in my case, I wan't to join  double stream, while my join key is a customer-defined Class(DataWithMeta), but exected failed! Below is the result! I don't know why 

Re: Next major milestone: first stable release

Alright -- sounds like we have a consensus to proceed with the first stable release after 0.6.0, targeting end of March / early April. I'll kick off separate threads for specific decisions we need to make. On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > I think

Re: Release 0.6.0

Can we please use JIRA to tag potentially release-blocking issues? Anyone can just add a 'Fix Versions' field of an open issue to the next scheduled release -- and it becomes easily visible to everyone in the project. In general, I'm not a fan of blocking releases for new functionality. Rushing