On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 8:22 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 6:26 AM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback thus far. Some more comments:
> >
> > > Instead, the runner knows ahead of time that it
> > > will need to instantiate this coder, and should update the bundle
> > > processor to specify KvCoder<LengthPrefixCoder<CustomCoder>,
> > > VarIntCoder> as the coder so both can pull it out in a consistent way.
> >
> > By "update the bundle processor", do you mean modifying the
> > ProcessBundleDescriptor's BagUserState with the correct key coder?
> > Conceptually that is possible, but the current implementation does not
> > allow for this to happen:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/076a037e53ca39b61c1dfeb580527bc8d0371dc1/runners/java-fn-execution/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/runners/fnexecution/control/ProcessBundleDescriptors.java#L284
> > It enforces ByteString which does not tell the SDK Harness anything
> > about the desired encoding.
>
> I meant update the BundleProcessDescriptor proto that is sent to the
> SDK
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/model/fn-execution/src/main/proto/beam_fn_api.proto#L140
> ,
> essentially option (1).
>

For clarity, the "key" coder is specified by the stateful ParDo's main
input PCollection. This means that the ProcessBundleDescriptor should have
something that has the length prefix as part of the remote grpc port
specification AND the PCollection that follows it which is the main input
for the stateful ParDo. This means that the wire format that the runner
sends for the "key" represents the exact same wire format it will receive
for state requests.

I see what you mean Max,
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/076a037e53ca39b61c1dfeb580527bc8d0371dc1/runners/java-fn-execution/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/runners/fnexecution/control/ProcessBundleDescriptors.java#L284
could change to represent the actual coder (whether it be
LengthPrefixCoder<BytesCoder> or some other model coder combination).
Currently that logic assumes that the runner can perform the backwards
mapping by decoding the bytestring with the appropriate coder.


> > Since the above does not seem feasible, I see the following options:
> >
> > (1) Modify the pipeline Proto before the translation and wrap a
> > LengthPrefixCoder around non-standard key coders for stateful
> > transforms. This would change the encoding for the entire element, to be
> > sure that the key coder for state requests contains a LengthPrefixCoder
> > for state requests from the SDK Harness. Not optimal.
>
> Yes. The contract should be that both the runner and SDK use the
> coders that are specified in the proto. The runner controls the proto,
> and should ensure it only sends protos it will be able to handle the
> SDK responding to. I'm not seeing why this is sub-optimal.
>
> > (2) Add a new method WireCoders#instantiateRunnerWireKeyCoder which
> > returns the correct key coder, i.e. for standard coders, the concrete
> > coder, and for non-standard coders a ByteArrayCoder. We also need to
> > ensure the key encoding on the Runner side is OUTER context, to avoid
> > adding a length prefix to the encoded bytes. Basically, the non-standard
> > coders result in a NOOP coder which does not touch the key bytes.
>
> I'd really like to avoid implicit agreements about how the coder that
> should be used differs from what's specified in the proto in different
> contexts.
>
> > (3) Patch the Python SDK to ensure non-standard state key coders are
> > always wrapped in a LengthPrefixCoder. That way, we can keep the
> > existing logic on the Runner side.
>
> The key concept here is not "standard coder" but "coder that the
> runner does not understand." This knowledge is only in the runner.
> Also has the downside of (2).
>
> > Option (2) seems like the most practical.
> >
> > -Max
> >
> > On 06.11.19 17:26, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:55 AM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Let me try to clarify:
> > >>
> > >>> The Coder used for State/Timers in a StatefulDoFn is pulled out of
> the
> > >>> input PCollection. If a Runner needs to partition by this coder, it
> > >>> should ensure the coder of this PCollection matches with the Coder
> > >>> used to create the serialized bytes that are used for partitioning
> > >>> (whether or not this is length-prefixed).
> > >>
> > >> That is essentially what I had assumed when I wrote the code. The
> > >> problem is the coder can be "pulled out" in different ways.
> > >>
> > >> For example, let's say we have the following Proto PCollection coder
> > >> with non-standard coder "CustomCoder" as the key coder:
> > >>
> > >>     KvCoder<CustomCoder, VarIntCoder>
> > >>
> > >>   From the Runner side, this currently looks like the following:
> > >>
> > >>     PCol: KvCoder<LengthPrefixCoder<ByteArrayCoder>, VarIntCoder>
> > >>     Key:  LengthPrefixCoder<ByteArrayCoder>
> > >
> > > This is I think where the error is. When If the proto references
> > > KvCoder<CustomCoder, VarIntCoder> it should not be pulled out as
> > > KvCoder<LengthPrefixCoder<ByteArrayCoder>, VarIntCoder>; as that
> > > doesn't have the same encoding. Trying to do instantiate such a coder
> > > should be an error. Instead, the runner knows ahead of time that it
> > > will need to instantiate this coder, and should update the bundle
> > > processor to specify KvCoder<LengthPrefixCoder<CustomCoder>,
> > > VarIntCoder> as the coder so both can pull it out in a consistent way.
> > >
> > > When the coder is KvCoder<LengthPrefixCoder<CustomCoder>, VarIntCoder>
> > > instantiating it as KvCoder<ByteArrayCoder, VarIntCoder> on the runner
> > > is of course OK as they do have the same encoding.
> > >
> > >> At the SDK Harness, we have the coder available:
> > >>
> > >>     PCol: KvCoder<CustomCoder, VarIntCoder>
> > >>     Key:  CustomCoder
> > >>
> > >> Currently, when the SDK Harness serializes a key for a state request,
> > >> the custom coder may happen to add a length prefix, or it may not. It
> > >> depends on the coder used. The correct behavior would be to use the
> same
> > >> representation as on the Runner side.
> > >>
> > >>> Specifically, "We have no way of telling from the Runner side, if a
> length prefix has been used or not." seems false
> > >>
> > >> The Runner cannot inspect an unknown coder, it only has the opaque
> Proto
> > >> information available which does not allow introspection of
> non-standard
> > >> coders. With the current state, the Runner may think the coder adds a
> > >> length prefix but the Python SDK worker could choose to add none. This
> > >> produces an inconsistent key encoding. See above.
> > >
> > > I think what's being conflated here is "the Coder has been wrapped in
> > > a LengthPrefixCoder" vs. "the coder does length prefixing." These are
> > > two orthogonal concepts. The runner in general only knows the former.
> > >
> > >> It looks like the key encoding for state requests on the Python SDK
> > >> Harness side is broken. For transferring elements of a PCollection,
> the
> > >> coders are obviously working correctly, but for encoding solely the
> key
> > >> of an element, there is a consistency issue.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -Max
> > >>
> > >> On 06.11.19 05:35, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> > >>> Specifically, "We have no way of telling from the Runner side, if a
> > >>> length prefix has been used or not." seems false. The runner has all
> the
> > >>> information since length prefix is a model coder. Didn't we agree
> that
> > >>> all coders should be self-delimiting in runner/SDK interactions,
> > >>> requiring length-prefix only when there is an opaque or
> dynamic-length
> > >>> value? I assume you mean that at runtime the worker for a given
> engine
> > >>> does not know?
> > >>>
> > >>> Kenn
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:19 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com
> > >>> <mailto:lc...@google.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>      +1 to what Robert said.
> > >>>
> > >>>      On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:36 PM Robert Bradshaw <
> rober...@google.com
> > >>>      <mailto:rober...@google.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>          The Coder used for State/Timers in a StatefulDoFn is pulled
> out
> > >>>          of the
> > >>>          input PCollection. If a Runner needs to partition by this
> coder, it
> > >>>          should ensure the coder of this PCollection matches with
> the Coder
> > >>>          used to create the serialized bytes that are used for
> partitioning
> > >>>          (whether or not this is length-prefixed).
> > >>>
> > >>>          Concretely, the graph looks like
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>          Runner                          SDK Harness
> > >>>
> > >>>          WriteToGbk
> > >>>               |
> > >>>          ReadFromGbk
> > >>>               |
> > >>>          RunnerMapFn.processKeyValue(key, value)
> > >>>               |
> > >>>               WriteToDataChannel
> > >>>                       ------------------------>
> > >>>                            ReadFromDataChannel
> > >>>                                          |
> > >>>                                      (pcIn)
> > >>>                                          |
> > >>>                             MyStatefulDoFn.process(key, value)
> > >>>
> > >>>          Now the (key part of the) Coder of pcIn, which comes from
> the proto
> > >>>          that the Runner sent to the SDK, must match the (key part
> of the)
> > >>>          encoding used in WriteToGbk and ReadFromGbk. If a
> LenthPrefix is
> > >>>          added
> > >>>          in one spot, it must be added in the other.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>          [1]
> > >>>
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.17.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py#L1183
> > >>>
> > >>>          On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:25 PM Maximilian Michels
> > >>>          <m...@apache.org <mailto:m...@apache.org>> wrote:
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > Hi,
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > I wanted to get your opinion on something that I have
> been
> > >>>          struggling
> > >>>           > with. It is about the coders for state requests in
> portable
> > >>>          pipelines.
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > In contrast to "classic" Beam, the Runner is not
> guaranteed
> > >>>          to know
> > >>>           > which coder is used by the SDK. If the SDK happens to
> use a
> > >>>          standard
> > >>>           > coder (also known as model coder), we will also have it
> > >>>          available at the
> > >>>           > Runner, i.e. if the Runner is written in one of the SDK
> > >>>          languages (e.g.
> > >>>           > Java). However, when we do not have a standard coder, we
> just
> > >>>          treat the
> > >>>           > data from the SDK as a blob and just pass it around as
> bytes.
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > Problem
> > >>>           > =======
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > In the case of state requests which the SDK Harness
> authors
> > >>>          to the
> > >>>           > Runner, we would like for the key associated with the
> state
> > >>>          request to
> > >>>           > match the key of the element which led to initiating the
> > >>>          state request.
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > Example:
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > Runner                 SDK Harness
> > >>>           > ------                 -----------
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > KV["key","value"]  --> Process Element
> > >>>           >                                |
> > >>>           > LookupState("key") <-- Request state of "key"
> > >>>           >          |
> > >>>           >     State["key"]    --> Receive state
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > For stateful DoFns, the Runner partitions the data based
> on
> > >>>          the key. In
> > >>>           > Flink, this partitioning must not change during the
> lifetime of a
> > >>>           > pipeline because the checkpointing otherwise breaks[0].
> The
> > >>>          key is
> > >>>           > extracted from the element and stored encoded.
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > If we have a standard coder, it is basically the same as
> in the
> > >>>           > "classic" Runner which takes the key and serializes it.
> > >>>          However, when we
> > >>>           > have an SDK-specific coder, we basically do not know how
> it
> > >>>          encodes. So
> > >>>           > far, we have been using the coder instantiated from the
> > >>>          Proto, which is
> > >>>           > basically a LengthPrefixCoder[ByteArrayCoder] or
> similar[1].
> > >>>          We have had
> > >>>           > problems with this because the key encoding of Java SDK
> state
> > >>>          requests
> > >>>           > did not match the key encoding on the Runner side [2].
> In an
> > >>>          attempt to
> > >>>           > fix those, it is now partly broken for portable Python
> pipelines.
> > >>>           > Partly, because it "only" affects non-standard coders.
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > Non-standard coders yield the aforementioned
> > >>>           > LengthPrefixCoder[ByteArrayCoder]. Now, following the
> usual
> > >>>          encoding
> > >>>           > scheme, we would simply encode the key using this coder.
> > >>>          However, for
> > >>>           > state requests, the Python SDK leaves out the length
> prefix
> > >>>          for certain
> > >>>           > coders, e.g. for primitives like int or byte. It is
> possible
> > >>>          that one
> > >>>           > coder uses a length prefix, while another doesn't. We
> have no
> > >>>          way of
> > >>>           > telling from the Runner side, if a length prefix has been
> > >>>          used or not.
> > >>>           > This results in the keys to not match on the Runner side
> and the
> > >>>           > partitioning to be broken.
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > How to solve this?
> > >>>           > ==================
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > (1) Should this simply be fixed on the Python SDK side?
> One
> > >>>          fix would be
> > >>>           > to always append a length prefix to the key in state
> > >>>          requests, even for
> > >>>           > primitive coders like VarInt which do not use one.
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > OR
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > (2) Should the Runner detect that a non-standard coder is
> > >>>          used? If so,
> > >>>           > it should just pass the bytes from the SDK Harness and
> never
> > >>>          make an
> > >>>           > attempt to construct a coder based on the Proto.
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > Thinking about it now, it seems pretty obvious that (2)
> is
> > >>>          the most
> > >>>           > feasible way to avoid complications across all current
> and
> > >>>          future SDKs
> > >>>           > for key encodings. Still, it is odd that the Proto
> contains coder
> > >>>           > information which is not usable.
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > What do you think?
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > Thanks,
> > >>>           > Max
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           >
> > >>>           > [0] It is possible to restart the pipeline and
> repartition the
> > >>>           > checkpointed data.
> > >>>           > [1]
> > >>>           >
> > >>>
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/c39752af5391fe698a2b4f1489c187ddd4d604c0/runners/flink/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/runners/flink/FlinkStreamingPortablePipelineTranslator.java#L682
> > >>>           > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8157
> > >>>
>

Reply via email to