I agree. Borrowing the mutation detection from the direct runner as an
intermediate point sounds like a good idea.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:57 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> I really think we should make a plan to make this the default. If you test
> with the DirectRunner it will do mutation
I really think we should make a plan to make this the default. If you test
with the DirectRunner it will do mutation checking and catch pipelines that
depend on the runner cloning every element. (also the DirectRunner doesn't
clone). Since the cloning is similar in cost to the mutation detection,
Hey! My option is not default as of now, since it can break pipelines
which rely on the faulty flink implementation. I'm creating my own
benchmarks locally and will run against those, but the idea of adding it
to the official benchmark runs sounds interesting, thanks for bringing
it up!
Hi Teodor,
Thank you for working on this. If I remember correctly, there were some
opportunities to improve in the previous paper (e.g. not focusing
deprecated runners, long running benchmarks, varying data sizes). And I am
excited that you are keeping the community as part of your research
Hey!
Yeah, that paper was what prompted my master thesis! I definitivly will
post here, once I get more data :)
Teodor
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 06:56:30AM -0600, Rion Williams wrote:
Hi Teodor,
Although I’m sure you’ve come across it, this might have some valuable
resources or
Hi Teodor,
Although I’m sure you’ve come across it, this might have some valuable
resources or methodologies to consider as you explore this a bit more:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.08302.pdf
I’m looking forward to reading about your finding, especially using a more
recent iteration of Beam!
Just bumping this so people see it now that 2.26.0 is out :)
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:09:52AM +0100, Teodor Spæren wrote:
Hey!
My name is Teodor Spæren and I'm writing a master thesis investigating
the performance overhead of using Beam instead of using the underlying
systems directly. My
