Disabling operator chaining is also the only way to see metrics from each
step right now.
On Monday, February 8, 2016, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> There is no fundamental reason to not implement this for batch as well.
>
> In Streaming, users seem to want more control about threads and resources
> (gi
There is no fundamental reason to not implement this for batch as well.
In Streaming, users seem to want more control about threads and resources
(given that these are often continuous pipelines), while in batch that was
not requested so far.
But I see that a non-chained function is more safe wit
Is there a reason to not also implement this for batch processing? This
would allow object reuse to be truly disabled.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> It may be useful for example when you have two MapFunctions and each does
> something CPU intensive, or communicates with a
It may be useful for example when you have two MapFunctions and each does
something CPU intensive, or communicates with an external service.
Without chaining, you will have two threads and an elastic channel between
the functions to buffer some records, which may help in such a case.
On Mon, Feb
When is this useful in streaming?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
>
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-0.10/api/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/environment/StreamExecutionEnvironment.html#disableOperatorChaining()
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:34 AM
https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-0.10/api/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/environment/StreamExecutionEnvironment.html#disableOperatorChaining()
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Greg Hogan wrote:
> Is it possible to force operator chaining to be disabled? Similar to how
Is it possible to force operator chaining to be disabled? Similar to how
object reuse can be enabled or disabled?
Greg
