Hi Vicent,

Window.into(FixedWindows.of(Duration.standardMinutes(5))) operation just
applies the window information to each element, not really does the
grouping operation. And in the commit transform, there is a combine
transform applied(Max.longsPerKey()).
Window.into(FixedWindows.of(Duration.standardMinutes(5))) + Max.longsPerKey()
means to output 1 element per 5 mins. This is different from your case
since the trigger in the CommitTransform is for the combine purpose.
And in order to prevent the data loss error you mentioned, there is a
persistent layer(Reshuffle) between Kafka read and any downstream
transform.

For your case, will the pipeline like KafkaRead -> Reshuffle ->
GroupIntoBatches -> downstream help you?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:19 PM Vincent Marquez <[email protected]>
wrote:

> If this is the case that the pipeline has no way of enforcing fixed time
> windows, how does this work:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/sdks/java/io/kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/io/kafka/KafkaCommitOffset.java#L126
>
> Isn't this supposed to only trigger every five minutes, regardless of how
> much data can immediately be grouped together in five minute windows?  If
> there is a way to mark that the fixed window should only trigger every so
> many minutes, that would solve my use case.  If there isn't a way to do
> this, the Kafka offset code seems broken and could result in 'data loss' by
> improperly committing offsets before they are run through the rest of the
> pipeline?
>
> *~Vincent*
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 4:17 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > the downstream consumer has these requirements.
>>
>> Blocking should normally be avoided at all cost, but if the downstream
>> operator has the requirement to only emit a fixed number of messages per
>> second, it should enforce this, i.e. block once the maximum number of
>> messages for a time period have been reached. This will automatically
>> lead to backpressure in Runners like Flink or Dataflow.
>>
>> -Max
>>
>> On 07.10.20 18:30, Luke Cwik wrote:
>> > SplittableDoFns apply to both batch and streaming pipelines. They are
>> > allowed to produce an unbounded amount of data and can either self
>> > checkpoint saying they want to resume later or the runner will ask them
>> > to checkpoint via a split call.
>> >
>> > There hasn't been anything concrete on backpressure, there has been
>> work
>> > done about exposing signals[1] related to IO that a runner can then use
>> > intelligently but throttling isn't one of them yet.
>> >
>> > 1:
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r7c1bf68bd126f3421019e238363415604505f82aeb28ccaf8b834d0d%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>> > <
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r7c1bf68bd126f3421019e238363415604505f82aeb28ccaf8b834d0d%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:51 PM Vincent Marquez
>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     Thanks for the response.  Is my understanding correct that
>> >     SplittableDoFns are only applicable to Batch pipelines?  I'm
>> >     wondering if there's any proposals to address backpressure needs?
>> >     /~Vincent/
>> >
>> >
>> >     On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 1:37 PM Luke Cwik <[email protected]
>> >     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >         There is no general back pressure mechanism within Apache Beam
>> >         (runners should be intelligent about this but there is currently
>> >         no way to say I'm being throttled so runners don't know that
>> >         throwing more CPUs at a problem won't make it go faster). Y
>> >
>> >         You can control how quickly you ingest data for runners that
>> >         support splittable DoFns with SDK initiated checkpoints with
>> >         resume delays. A splittable DoFn is able to return
>> >         resume().withDelay(Duration.seconds(10)) from
>> >         the @ProcessElement method. See Watch[1] for an example.
>> >
>> >         The 2.25.0 release enables more splittable DoFn features on more
>> >         runners. I'm working on a blog (initial draft[2], still mostly
>> >         empty) to update the old blog from 2017.
>> >
>> >         1:
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/9c239ac93b40e911f03bec5da3c58a07fdceb245/sdks/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/Watch.java#L908
>> >         <
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/9c239ac93b40e911f03bec5da3c58a07fdceb245/sdks/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/Watch.java#L908
>> >
>> >         2:
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kpn0RxqZaoacUPVSMYhhnfmlo8fGT-p50fEblaFr2HE/edit#
>> >         <
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kpn0RxqZaoacUPVSMYhhnfmlo8fGT-p50fEblaFr2HE/edit#
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >         On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 10:39 AM Vincent Marquez
>> >         <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> >         wrote:
>> >
>> >             Hmm, I'm not sure how that will help, I understand how to
>> >             batch up the data, but it is the triggering part that I
>> >             don't see how to do.  For example, in Spark Structured
>> >             Streaming, you can set a time trigger which happens at a
>> >             fixed interval all the way up to the source, so the source
>> >             can throttle how much data to read even.
>> >
>> >             Here is my use case more thoroughly explained:
>> >
>> >             I have a Kafka topic (with multiple partitions) that I'm
>> >             reading from, and I need to aggregate batches of up to 500
>> >             before sending a single batch off in an RPC call.  However,
>> >             the vendor specified a rate limit, so if there are more than
>> >             500 unread messages in the topic, I must wait 1 second
>> >             before issuing another RPC call. When searching on Stack
>> >             Overflow I found this answer:
>> >             https://stackoverflow.com/a/57275557/25658
>> >             <https://stackoverflow.com/a/57275557/25658> that makes it
>> >             seem challenging, but I wasn't sure if things had changed
>> >             since then or you had better ideas.
>> >
>> >             /~Vincent/
>> >
>> >
>> >             On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:57 PM Luke Cwik <[email protected]
>> >             <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >                 Look at the GroupIntoBatches[1] transform. It will
>> >                 buffer "batches" of size X for you.
>> >
>> >                 1:
>> >
>> https://beam.apache.org/documentation/transforms/java/aggregation/groupintobatches/
>> >                 <
>> https://beam.apache.org/documentation/transforms/java/aggregation/groupintobatches/
>> >
>> >
>> >                 On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:51 PM Vincent Marquez
>> >                 <[email protected]
>> >                 <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >                     the downstream consumer has these requirements.
>> >
>> >                     /~Vincent/
>> >
>> >
>> >                     On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:29 PM Luke Cwik
>> >                     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >                         Why do you want to only emit X? (e.g. running
>> >                         out of memory in the runner)
>> >
>> >                         On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:08 PM Vincent Marquez
>> >                         <[email protected]
>> >                         <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >                             Hello all.  If I want to 'throttle' the
>> >                             number of messages I pull off say, Kafka or
>> >                             some other queue, in order to make sure I
>> >                             only emit X amount per trigger, is there a
>> >                             way to do that and ensure that I get 'at
>> >                             least once' delivery guarantees?   If this
>> >                             isn't supported, would the better way be to
>> >                             pull the limited amount opposed to doing it
>> >                             on the output side?
>> >
>> >                             /
>> >                             /
>> >                             /~Vincent/
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to