If the vertex type is POJO what happens during the union of the graph? Is there
a persistent approach, or can we define a function handle such occasions?
Would there be a performance difference between two cases:
1)
Graph graph = … // From edges list
graph = graph.runScatterGatherIteration();
Graph secondGraph = … // From second edge list
graph = graph.union(secondGraph).runScatterGatherIteration()
2)
Graph graph = … // From edges list
graph = graph.runScatterGatherIteration();
graph.addEdges(second_edge_list)
graph = graph.runScatterGatherIteration();
Before starting the second scatter-gather, I want to set/reset some fields of
the vertex value of the vertices that are effected by edge additions/deletions
(or union). It would be good to have a callback function that touches the
end-points of the edges that are added/deleted.
Best
Kaan
> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:07 AM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kaan,
>
> I think what you are proposing is something like this:
>
> Graph<Long, Double, Double> graph = ... // get first batch
>
> Graph<Long, Double, Double> graphAfterFirstSG =
> graph.runScatterGatherIteration();
>
> Graph<Long, Double, Double> secondBatch = ... // get second batch
>
> // Adjust the result of SG iteration with secondBatch
>
> Graph<Long, Double, Double> updatedGraph =
> graphAfterFirstSG.union/difference(secondBatch));
>
> updatedGraph.runScatterGatherIteration();
>
> Then I believe this should work.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:14 AM Kaan Sancak <kaans...@gmail.com
> <mailto:kaans...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for the useful information! It seems like a good and fun idea to
> experiment. I will definitely give it a try.
>
> I have a very close upcoming deadline and I have already implemented the
> Scatter-Gather iteration algorithm.
>
> I have another question on whether we can chain Scatter-Gather or
> Vertex-Centric iterations.
> Let’s say that we have an initial batch/dataset, we run a Scatter-Gather and
> obtain graph.
> Using another batch we added/deleted vertices to the graph we obtained.
> Now we run another Scatter-Gather on the modified graph.
>
> This is no streaming but a naive way to simulate batch updates that are
> happening concurrently.
> Do you think it is a feasible way to do this way?
>
> Best
> Kaan
>
>> On Apr 13, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org
>> <mailto:tzuli...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As you mentioned, Gelly Graph's are backed by Flink DataSets, and therefore
>> work primarily on static graphs. I don't think it'll be possible to
>> implement incremental algorithms described in your SO question.
>>
>> Have you tried looking at Stateful Functions, a recent new API added to
>> Flink?
>> It supports arbitrary messaging between functions, which may allow you to
>> build what you have in mind.
>> Take a look at Seth's an Igal's comments here [1], where there seems to be a
>> similar incremental graph-processing use case for sessionization.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Gordon
>>
>> [1]
>> http://apache-flink-user-mailing-list-archive.2336050.n4.nabble.com/Complex-graph-based-sessionization-potential-use-for-stateful-functions-td34000.html#a34017
>>
>> <http://apache-flink-user-mailing-list-archive.2336050.n4.nabble.com/Complex-graph-based-sessionization-potential-use-for-stateful-functions-td34000.html#a34017>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from:
>> http://apache-flink-user-mailing-list-archive.2336050.n4.nabble.com/
>> <http://apache-flink-user-mailing-list-archive.2336050.n4.nabble.com/>
>
