Hi, When we use RocksDB as state backend, how does the backend state get updated after some elements are evicted from the window? I don't see any update call being made to remove the element from the state stored in RocksDB.
It looks like the RocksDBListState is only having get() and add() methods since it is an AppendingState, but that causes the evicted elements to come back when the trigger is fired next time. (It works fine when I use MemoryStateBackend) Is this expected behavior or am I missing something. Thanks, Vishnu On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Vishnu Viswanath < vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Aljoscha, > > Thanks! Yes, I have the create page option now in wiki. > > Regards, > Vishnu Viswanath, > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> @Radu, addition of more window types and sorting should be part of another >> design proposal. This is interesting stuff but I think we should keep >> issues separated because things can get complicated very quickly. >> >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 at 12:32 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > about TimeEvictor, yes, I think there should be specific evictors for >> > processing time and event time. Also, the current time should be >> > retrievable from the EvictorContext. >> > >> > For the wiki you will need permissions. This was recently changed >> because >> > there was too much spam. I gave you permission to add pages. Can you >> please >> > try and check if it works? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Aljoscha >> > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 13:28 Vishnu Viswanath < >> > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> How do we create a FLIP page, is there any permission setup required? I >> >> don't see any "Create" page(after logging in) option in the header as >> >> mentioned in >> >> >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Vishnu >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Vishnu Viswanath < >> >> vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi Aljoscha, >> >> > >> >> > I agree, the user will know exactly that they are creating an >> EventTime >> >> > based evictor or ProcessingTime based evictor looking at the code. >> >> > So do you think it will be ok to have multiple versions of >> TimeEvictor >> >> > (one for event time and one for processing time) and also a >> DeltaEvcitor >> >> > (again 2 versions- for event time and processing time) ? >> >> > >> >> > Please note that the existing behavior of TimeEvictor/DeltaEvictor >> does >> >> > not consider if it is EventTime or ProcessingTime >> >> > e.g., in TimeEvictor the current time is considered as the timestamp >> of >> >> > the last element in the window >> >> > >> >> > *long currentTime = Iterables.getLast(elements).getTimestamp();* >> >> > >> >> > not the highest timestamp of all elements >> >> > what I am trying to achieve is something like: >> >> > >> >> > *long currentTime;* >> >> > * if (ctx.isEventTime()) {* >> >> > * currentTime = getMaxTimestamp(elements);* >> >> > * } else {* >> >> > * currentTime = Iterables.getLast(elements).getTimestamp();* >> >> > * }* >> >> > >> >> > Similarly, in DeltaEvictor the *`lastElement`* is >> >> > *`Iterables.getLast(elements);`* and I am thinking we should consider >> >> the >> >> > element with max timestamp as the last element instead of just >> getting >> >> the >> >> > last inserted element as *`lastElement`* >> >> > >> >> > Do you think it is the right thing to do or leave the behavior >> Evictors >> >> as >> >> > is, w.r.t to choosing the last element? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Vishnu >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < >> aljos...@apache.org >> >> > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I still think it should be explicit in the class. For example, if >> you >> >> have >> >> >> this code: >> >> >> >> >> >> input >> >> >> .keyBy() >> >> >> .window() >> >> >> .trigger(EventTimeTrigger.create()) >> >> >> .evictor(TimeTrigger.create()) >> >> >> >> >> >> the time behavior of the trigger is explicitly specified while the >> >> evictor >> >> >> would dynamically adapt based on internal workings that the user >> might >> >> not >> >> >> be aware of. Having the behavior explicit at the call site is very >> >> >> important, in my opinion. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 16:28 Vishnu Viswanath < >> >> >> vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I was hoping to use the isEventTime method in the WindowAssigner >> to >> >> set >> >> >> > that information in the EvictorContext. >> >> >> > What do you think?. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks and Regards, >> >> >> > Vishnu Viswanath, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < >> >> aljos...@apache.org >> >> >> > >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Hi, >> >> >> > > I think the way to go here is to add both an EventTimeEvictor >> and a >> >> >> > > ProcessingTimeEvictor. The problem is that "isEventTime" cannot >> >> >> really be >> >> >> > > determined. That's also the reason why there is an >> EventTimeTrigger >> >> >> and a >> >> >> > > ProcessingTimeTrigger. It was just an oversight that the >> >> TimeEvictor >> >> >> does >> >> >> > > not also have these two versions. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > About EvictingWindowOperator, I think you can make the two >> methods >> >> >> > > non-final in WindowOperator, yes. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Cheers, >> >> >> > > Aljoscha >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 14:32 Vishnu Viswanath < >> >> >> > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > Hi Aljoscha, >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > I am thinking of adding a method boolean isEventTime(); in the >> >> >> > > > EvictorContext apart from >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > long getCurrentProcessingTime(); >> >> >> > > > MetricGroup getMetricGroup(); >> >> >> > > > long getCurrentWatermark(); >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > This method can be used to make the Evictor not iterate >> through >> >> all >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > > elements in TimeEvictor. There will be a few changes in the >> >> existing >> >> >> > > > behavior of TimeEvictor and DeltaEvictor (I have mentioned >> this >> >> in >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > > design doc) >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Also, is there any specific reason why the open and close >> method >> >> in >> >> >> > > > WindowEvictor is made final? Since the EvictorContext will be >> in >> >> the >> >> >> > > > EvictingWindowOperator, I need to override the open and close >> in >> >> >> > > > EvitingWindowOperator to make the reference of EvictorContext >> >> null. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Thanks and Regards, >> >> >> > > > Vishnu Viswanath, >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Vishnu Viswanath < >> >> >> > > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > My thought process when asking if we can use state backend in >> >> window >> >> >> > > > > function was : can we add the elements to be evicted into >> some >> >> >> state >> >> >> > > and >> >> >> > > > > allow the evictAfter to read it from some context and >> remove it >> >> >> from >> >> >> > > the >> >> >> > > > > window? >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Vishnu Viswanath < >> >> >> > > > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> Hi Aljoscha, >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for late reply was >> busy >> >> >> with >> >> >> > > work. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> I did think about this scenario, in fact in my previous >> mail I >> >> >> > thought >> >> >> > > > of >> >> >> > > > >> posting this question, then I understood that this problem >> >> will >> >> >> be >> >> >> > > > >> there which ever method we choose(Trigger looking for >> pattern >> >> or >> >> >> > > Window >> >> >> > > > >> looking for pattern). >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> I do have a pretty good watermark but my concern is that it >> >> >> changes >> >> >> > > > based >> >> >> > > > >> on the key of these messages(I don't know if it is >> possible, >> >> >> haven't >> >> >> > > > >> started coding that yet. May be you could tell me). Even if >> >> it is >> >> >> > yes >> >> >> > > > some >> >> >> > > > >> of these watermarks will be long(in days), which I don't >> want >> >> the >> >> >> > > > trigger >> >> >> > > > >> to wait that long. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> It looks like it is not easy to have an evictAfter based on >> >> >> window >> >> >> > > > >> function(without introducing coupling), but can the current >> >> >> window >> >> >> > > apply >> >> >> > > > >> function be modified to allow it to change the elements in >> it >> >> - >> >> >> may >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > > > >> using some state backend(I don't know how excatly the >> >> internals >> >> >> of >> >> >> > > these >> >> >> > > > >> work, so this might be a wrong question) >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> Thanks and Regards, >> >> >> > > > >> Vishnu Viswanath, >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < >> >> >> > > aljos...@apache.org> >> >> >> > > > >> wrote: >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >>> Hi Vishnu, >> >> >> > > > >>> how long would these patterns be? The Trigger would not >> have >> >> to >> >> >> > sort >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> elements for every new element but just insert the new >> >> element >> >> >> into >> >> >> > > an >> >> >> > > > >>> internal data structure. Only when it sees that the >> >> watermark is >> >> >> > > past a >> >> >> > > > >>> certain point would it check whether the pattern matches >> and >> >> >> > actually >> >> >> > > > >>> Trigger. >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> A general note regarding order and event time: I think >> >> relying >> >> >> on >> >> >> > > this >> >> >> > > > >>> for >> >> >> > > > >>> computation is very tricky unless the watermark is 100 % >> >> >> correct or >> >> >> > > you >> >> >> > > > >>> completely discard elements that arrive after the >> watermark, >> >> >> i.e. >> >> >> > > > >>> elements >> >> >> > > > >>> that would break the promise of the watermark that no >> >> elements >> >> >> with >> >> >> > > an >> >> >> > > > >>> earlier timestamp will ever arrive. The reason for this is >> >> that >> >> >> > there >> >> >> > > > >>> could >> >> >> > > > >>> always enter new elements that end up between already seen >> >> >> > elements. >> >> >> > > > For >> >> >> > > > >>> example, let's say we have this sequence of elements when >> the >> >> >> > trigger >> >> >> > > > >>> fires: >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> a-b-a >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> This is the sequence that you are looking for and you emit >> >> some >> >> >> > > result >> >> >> > > > >>> from >> >> >> > > > >>> the WindowFunction. Now, new elements arrive that fall in >> >> >> between >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > > > >>> elements we already have: >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> a-d-e-b-f-g-a >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> This is an updated, sorted view of the actual event-time >> >> stream >> >> >> and >> >> >> > > we >> >> >> > > > >>> didn't realize that the stream actually looks like this >> >> before. >> >> >> > Does >> >> >> > > > this >> >> >> > > > >>> still match the original pattern or should we now consider >> >> this >> >> >> as >> >> >> > > > >>> non-matching? If no, then the earlier successful match for >> >> a-b-a >> >> >> > was >> >> >> > > > >>> wrong >> >> >> > > > >>> and we should never have processed it but we didn't know >> at >> >> the >> >> >> > time. >> >> >> > > > If >> >> >> > > > >>> yes, then pattern matching like this can be done in the >> >> Trigger >> >> >> by >> >> >> > > > having >> >> >> > > > >>> something like pattern slots: You don't have to store all >> >> >> elements >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> Trigger, you just need to store possible candidates that >> >> could >> >> >> > match >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> pattern and ignore the other (in-between) elements. >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> Cheers, >> >> >> > > > >>> Aljoscha >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 at 14:10 Vishnu Viswanath < >> >> >> > > > >>> vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > > >>> wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >>> > Hi Aljoscha, >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > That is a good idea, trying to tie it back to the use >> case, >> >> >> > > > >>> > e.g., suppose trigger is looking for a pattern, a-b-a >> and >> >> >> when it >> >> >> > > > sees >> >> >> > > > >>> such >> >> >> > > > >>> > a pattern, it will trigger the window and it knows that >> now >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > > >>> Evictor is >> >> >> > > > >>> > going to evict the element b, and trigger updates its >> >> state as >> >> >> > a-a >> >> >> > > > >>> (even >> >> >> > > > >>> > before the window & evictor completes) and will be >> looking >> >> for >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > > > >>> rest of >> >> >> > > > >>> > the pattern i.e., b-a. But I can think of 1 problem >> here, >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > - the events can arrive out of order, i.e., the >> trigger >> >> >> might >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > > > >>> seeing >> >> >> > > > >>> > a pattern a-a-b but actual event time is a-b-a then >> >> trigger >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > > > >>> have to >> >> >> > > > >>> > sort the elements in the window everytime it sees an >> >> >> element. >> >> >> > (I >> >> >> > > > was >> >> >> > > > >>> > planning to do this sorting in the window, which >> will be >> >> >> less >> >> >> > > > often >> >> >> > > > >>> - >> >> >> > > > >>> > only >> >> >> > > > >>> > when the trigger fires) >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > Thanks and Regards, >> >> >> > > > >>> > Vishnu Viswanath, >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < >> >> >> > > > aljos...@apache.org> >> >> >> > > > >>> > wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > Hi, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > come to think of it, the right place to put such >> checks >> >> is >> >> >> > > actually >> >> >> > > > >>> the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > Trigger. It would have to be a custom trigger that >> >> observes >> >> >> > time >> >> >> > > > but >> >> >> > > > >>> also >> >> >> > > > >>> > > keeps some internal state machine to decide when it >> has >> >> >> > observed >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > right >> >> >> > > > >>> > > pattern in the window. Then the window function would >> >> just >> >> >> have >> >> >> > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> do the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > processing and you have good separation of concerns. >> Does >> >> >> that >> >> >> > > make >> >> >> > > > >>> > sense? >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > I'm ignoring time and sorting by time for now because >> we >> >> >> > probably >> >> >> > > > >>> need >> >> >> > > > >>> > > another design document for that. To me it seems like >> a >> >> >> bigger >> >> >> > > > thing. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > Cheers, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > Aljoscha >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 at 23:56 Vishnu Viswanath < >> >> >> > > > >>> > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > Hi, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > Regarding the evictAfter function, that evicts >> based on >> >> >> some >> >> >> > > > >>> decision >> >> >> > > > >>> > > made >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > by the window function: I think it will be nice if >> we >> >> can >> >> >> > come >> >> >> > > > up >> >> >> > > > >>> with >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > something that is LESS coupled, because I can think >> of >> >> >> > several >> >> >> > > > use >> >> >> > > > >>> > cases >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > that depend on it. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > Especially in the case where there are late arriving >> >> >> > messages. >> >> >> > > > Only >> >> >> > > > >>> > after >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > the window function is applied we could tell what >> to do >> >> >> with >> >> >> > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > elements >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > in the window. You could apply your business logic >> >> there >> >> >> to >> >> >> > > > >>> determine >> >> >> > > > >>> > if >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > the window funciton was able to do what it is >> supposed >> >> to >> >> >> do, >> >> >> > > if >> >> >> > > > >>> yes >> >> >> > > > >>> > > evict >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > those elements, else(since the elements you are >> looking >> >> >> for >> >> >> > > > haven't >> >> >> > > > >>> > > arrived >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > yet) wait and try again when the trigger gets fired >> >> next >> >> >> > time. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > Thanks and Regards, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > Vishnu Viswanath, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Radu Tudoran < >> >> >> > > > >>> radu.tudo...@huawei.com> >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Hi, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > @Aljoscha - I can understand the reason why you >> are >> >> >> > hesitant >> >> >> > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> > > introduce >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > "slower" windows such as the ones that would >> maintain >> >> >> > sorted >> >> >> > > > >>> items or >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > windows with bindings between the different >> entities >> >> >> > > (evictor, >> >> >> > > > >>> > trigger, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > window, apply function). However, I think it's >> >> possible >> >> >> > just >> >> >> > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> > create >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > more >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > types of windows. The existing ones (timewindows, >> >> global >> >> >> > > > windows >> >> >> > > > >>> ...) >> >> >> > > > >>> > > can >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > remain, and just add some more flavors of windows >> >> were >> >> >> more >> >> >> > > > >>> features >> >> >> > > > >>> > > are >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > enabled or more functionality (e.g., access to the >> >> each >> >> >> > > element >> >> >> > > > >>> in >> >> >> > > > >>> > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > evictor ; possibility to delete or mark for >> eviction >> >> >> > elements >> >> >> > > > in >> >> >> > > > >>> the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > function...) >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Regarding the specific case of sorted windows, I >> >> think >> >> >> the >> >> >> > N >> >> >> > > > lon >> >> >> > > > >>> N >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > complexity to sort (the worst case) is very >> >> unlikely. In >> >> >> > fact >> >> >> > > > you >> >> >> > > > >>> > have >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > almost sorted items/arrays. Moreover, if you >> consider >> >> >> that >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > > > >>> > > iteration X >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > all elements were sorted, then in iteration X+1 >> you >> >> will >> >> >> > need >> >> >> > > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> sort >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > just >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > the newly arrived elements (M). I would expect >> that >> >> this >> >> >> > > > number M >> >> >> > > > >>> > might >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > be >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > significant smaller then N (elements that exists). >> >> Then >> >> >> > using >> >> >> > > > an >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > insertion >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > sort for these new elements you would have M * N >> >> >> > complexity >> >> >> > > > and >> >> >> > > > >>> if >> >> >> > > > >>> > > M<< N >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > then the complexity is O(N). Alternatively you can >> >> use a >> >> >> > > binary >> >> >> > > > >>> > search >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > for >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > insertion and then you further reduce the >> complexity >> >> to >> >> >> > > > O(logN). >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > If M is proportional to N then you can sort M and >> use >> >> >> merge >> >> >> > > > sort >> >> >> > > > >>> for >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > combining. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Dr. Radu Tudoran >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Research Engineer - Big Data Expert >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > IT R&D Division >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > European Research Center >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Riesstrasse 25, 80992 München >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > E-mail: radu.tudo...@huawei.com >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Mobile: +49 15209084330 >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Telephone: +49 891588344173 >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Hansaallee 205, 40549 Düsseldorf, Germany, >> >> >> www.huawei.com >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Registered Office: Düsseldorf, Register Court >> >> >> Düsseldorf, >> >> >> > HRB >> >> >> > > > >>> 56063, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Managing Director: Bo PENG, Wanzhou MENG, Lifang >> CHEN >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Düsseldorf, Amtsgericht >> >> >> Düsseldorf, >> >> >> > > HRB >> >> >> > > > >>> 56063, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Geschäftsführer: Bo PENG, Wanzhou MENG, Lifang >> CHEN >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > This e-mail and its attachments contain >> confidential >> >> >> > > > information >> >> >> > > > >>> from >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or >> >> entity >> >> >> > whose >> >> >> > > > >>> address >> >> >> > > > >>> > > is >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > listed above. Any use of the information contained >> >> >> herein >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > > > any >> >> >> > > > >>> way >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > (including, but not limited to, total or partial >> >> >> > disclosure, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > reproduction, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > or dissemination) by persons other than the >> intended >> >> >> > > > >>> recipient(s) is >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, >> >> please >> >> >> > > notify >> >> >> > > > >>> the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > sender >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > by phone or email immediately and delete it! >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > From: 吕文龙(吕文龙) [mailto: >> wenlong....@alibaba-inc.com] >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 11:59 AM >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > To: dev@flink.apache.org >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Subject: 答复: [DISCUSS] Enhance Window Evictor in >> >> Flink >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > HI, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > I think it is necessary to support sorted window, >> >> which >> >> >> can >> >> >> > > > avoid >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > scanning >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > all the elements of window while trying to >> evicting >> >> >> > element, >> >> >> > > > >>> which >> >> >> > > > >>> > may >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > cost >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > many IO operations, such as querying DBs to get >> >> elements >> >> >> > from >> >> >> > > > >>> state. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > What's more, when an window aggregation function >> is >> >> >> > > invertible, >> >> >> > > > >>> such >> >> >> > > > >>> > as >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > sum, which can be updated by adding or removing a >> >> single >> >> >> > > > record, >> >> >> > > > >>> > window >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > results can be incrementally calculated. In this >> >> kind of >> >> >> > > case, >> >> >> > > > >>> we can >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > dramatically improve the performance of window >> >> >> aggregation, >> >> >> > > if >> >> >> > > > >>> > evictor >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > can >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > trigger update of window aggregation state by some >> >> >> > mechanism. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Best Wishes! >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > --- >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > wenlong.lwl >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > -----邮件原件----- >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > 发件人: Aljoscha Krettek [mailto:aljos...@apache.org >> ] >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > 发送时间: 2016年7月7日 17:32 >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > 收件人: dev@flink.apache.org >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] Enhance Window Evictor in Flink >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Hi, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > regarding "sorting the window by event time": I >> also >> >> >> > > considered >> >> >> > > > >>> this >> >> >> > > > >>> > > but >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > in the end I don't think it's necessary. Sorting >> is >> >> >> rather >> >> >> > > > >>> expensive >> >> >> > > > >>> > > and >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > making decisions based on the order of elements >> can >> >> be >> >> >> > > tricky. >> >> >> > > > An >> >> >> > > > >>> > > extreme >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > example of why this can be problematic is the case >> >> where >> >> >> > all >> >> >> > > > >>> elements >> >> >> > > > >>> > > in >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > the window have the same timestamp. Now, if you >> >> decide >> >> >> to >> >> >> > > evict >> >> >> > > > >>> the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > first 5 >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > elements based on timestamp order you basically >> >> >> arbitrarily >> >> >> > > > >>> evict 5 >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > elements. I think the better solution for doing >> >> >> time-based >> >> >> > > > >>> eviction >> >> >> > > > >>> > is >> >> >> > > > >>> > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > do one pass over the elements to get an overview >> of >> >> the >> >> >> > > > timestamp >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > distribution, then do a second pass and evict >> >> elements >> >> >> > based >> >> >> > > on >> >> >> > > > >>> what >> >> >> > > > >>> > > was >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > learned in the first pass. This has complexity 2*n >> >> >> compared >> >> >> > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > n*log >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > n >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > (plus the work of actually deciding what to >> evict) of >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > sort >> >> >> > > > >>> based >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > strategy. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > I might be wrong, though, and there could be a >> valid >> >> >> > use-case >> >> >> > > > not >> >> >> > > > >>> > > covered >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > by the above idea. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > regarding Vishnu's other use case of evicting >> based >> >> on >> >> >> some >> >> >> > > > >>> decision >> >> >> > > > >>> > in >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > WindowFunction: could this be solved by doing the >> >> check >> >> >> for >> >> >> > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > pattern >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > in >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > the evictor itself instead of in the window >> function? >> >> >> I'm >> >> >> > > very >> >> >> > > > >>> > hesitant >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > introduce a coupling between the different >> >> components of >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > windowing >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > system, i.e. assigner, trigger, evictor and window >> >> >> > function. >> >> >> > > > The >> >> >> > > > >>> > reason >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > is >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > that using an evictor has a huge performance >> impact >> >> >> since >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > > > >>> system >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > always >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > has to keep all elements and cannot to incremental >> >> >> > > aggregation >> >> >> > > > of >> >> >> > > > >>> > > window >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > results and I therefore don't want to put specific >> >> >> features >> >> >> > > > >>> regarding >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > eviction into the other components. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Cheers, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > Aljoscha >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 at 10:00 Radu Tudoran < >> >> >> > > > >>> radu.tudo...@huawei.com> >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Hi, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > I think the situation Vishnu raised is something >> >> that >> >> >> > > should >> >> >> > > > be >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > accounted. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > It can happen indeed that you want to condition >> >> what >> >> >> you >> >> >> > > > evict >> >> >> > > > >>> from >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > the window based on the result of the function >> to >> >> be >> >> >> > > applied. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > My 2 cents... >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > I would suggest adding a list for the elements >> of >> >> the >> >> >> > > stream >> >> >> > > > >>> where >> >> >> > > > >>> > > you >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > can MARK them to be delete. Alternatively the >> >> iterator >> >> >> > can >> >> >> > > be >> >> >> > > > >>> > > extended >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > to have a function >> Iterator.markForEviction(int); >> >> >> These >> >> >> > can >> >> >> > > > be >> >> >> > > > >>> made >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > available also in the apply function. Moreover, >> we >> >> can >> >> >> > use >> >> >> > > > >>> this to >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > extend the functionality such that you add MARKs >> >> >> either >> >> >> > for >> >> >> > > > >>> > eviction >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > after the function has finished triggering or >> to be >> >> >> > evicted >> >> >> > > > in >> >> >> > > > >>> the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > next >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > iteration. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Dr. Radu Tudoran >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Research Engineer - Big Data Expert >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > IT R&D Division >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > European Research Center >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Riesstrasse 25, 80992 München >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > E-mail: radu.tudo...@huawei.com >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Mobile: +49 15209084330 >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Telephone: +49 891588344173 >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Hansaallee 205, 40549 Düsseldorf, Germany, >> >> >> > www.huawei.com >> >> >> > > > >>> > Registered >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Office: Düsseldorf, Register Court Düsseldorf, >> HRB >> >> >> 56063, >> >> >> > > > >>> Managing >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Director: Bo PENG, Wanzhou MENG, Lifang CHEN >> Sitz >> >> der >> >> >> > > > >>> Gesellschaft: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Düsseldorf, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 56063, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Geschäftsführer: Bo PENG, Wanzhou MENG, Lifang >> CHEN >> >> >> This >> >> >> > > > >>> e-mail and >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > its attachments contain confidential information >> >> from >> >> >> > > HUAWEI, >> >> >> > > > >>> which >> >> >> > > > >>> > > is >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > intended only for the person or entity whose >> >> address >> >> >> is >> >> >> > > > listed >> >> >> > > > >>> > above. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Any use of the information contained herein in >> any >> >> way >> >> >> > > > >>> (including, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > but >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > not limited to, total or partial disclosure, >> >> >> > reproduction, >> >> >> > > or >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > dissemination) by persons other than the >> intended >> >> >> > > > recipient(s) >> >> >> > > > >>> is >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, >> >> >> please >> >> >> > > > notify >> >> >> > > > >>> the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > sender by phone or email immediately and delete >> it! >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > From: Vishnu Viswanath [mailto: >> >> >> > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com] >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 1:28 AM >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > To: Dev >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enhance Window Evictor in >> >> Flink >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Thank you Maxim and Aljoscha. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Yes the beforeEvict and afterEvict should able >> >> address >> >> >> > > point >> >> >> > > > 3. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > I have one more use case in my mind (which I >> might >> >> >> have >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > > do >> >> >> > > > >>> in >> >> >> > > > >>> > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > later stages of POC). >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > What if the `evictAfter` should behave >> differently >> >> >> based >> >> >> > on >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > window >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > function. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > For example. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > I have a window that got triggered and my evict >> >> >> function >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > > > >>> being >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > called after the apply function. In such cases I >> >> >> should >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > > > >>> able to >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > decide on what I should evict based on the >> window >> >> >> > function. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > e.g., >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > let the window have elements of type `case class >> >> >> Item(id: >> >> >> > > > >>> String, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > type: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > String)` and let the types be `type1` and >> `type2`. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > If window function is able to find a sequence : >> >> `type1 >> >> >> > > type2 >> >> >> > > > >>> > type1`, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > then evict all elements of the type type2. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > or if the window function is able to find a >> >> sequence >> >> >> > `type2 >> >> >> > > > >>> type2 >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > type1`, then evict all elements of type type1 >> else >> >> >> don't >> >> >> > > > evict >> >> >> > > > >>> any >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > elements. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Is this possible? or at least let the window >> >> function >> >> >> > > choose >> >> >> > > > >>> > between >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > two Evictor functions -(one for success case and >> >> one >> >> >> > > failure >> >> >> > > > >>> case) >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > @Maxim: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > regarding the sorted window, actually I wanted >> my >> >> >> > elements >> >> >> > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> be >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > sorted but not for the eviction but while >> applying >> >> the >> >> >> > > window >> >> >> > > > >>> > > function >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > (so thought this could be done easily). But it >> >> would >> >> >> be >> >> >> > > good >> >> >> > > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> > have >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > the window sorted based on EventTime. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Thanks and Regards, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > Vishnu Viswanath, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Maxim < >> >> >> mfat...@gmail.com >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > Actually for such evictor to be useful the >> window >> >> >> > should >> >> >> > > be >> >> >> > > > >>> > sorted >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > by some field, usually event time. What do you >> >> think >> >> >> > > about >> >> >> > > > >>> adding >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > sorted window abstraction? >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Aljoscha >> Krettek >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > <aljos...@apache.org> >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > @Maxim: That's perfect I didn't think about >> >> using >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > Iterator.remove() for that. I'll update the >> >> doc. >> >> >> What >> >> >> > > do >> >> >> > > > >>> you >> >> >> > > > >>> > > think >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > Vishnu? This should also >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > cover >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > your before/after case nicely. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > @Vishnu: The steps would be these: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > - Converge on a design in this discussion >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > - Add a Jira issue here: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > - Work on the code an create a pull >> request on >> >> >> > github >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > The steps are also outlined here >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> http://flink.apache.org/how-to-contribute.html >> >> >> and >> >> >> > > here >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> http://flink.apache.org/contribute-code.html. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > - >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > Aljoscha >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 at 19:45 Maxim < >> >> >> mfat...@gmail.com >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > The new API forces iteration through every >> >> >> element >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > buffer >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > even >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > if >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > a >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > single value to be evicted. What about >> >> >> implementing >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Iterator.remove() method for elements? The >> >> API >> >> >> > would >> >> >> > > > look >> >> >> > > > >>> > like: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > public interface Evictor<T, W extends >> Window> >> >> >> > extends >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Serializable { >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > /** >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * Optionally evicts elements. Called >> >> before >> >> >> > > > >>> windowing >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > function. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * @param elements The elements >> currently >> >> in >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > > >>> pane. Use >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Iterator.remove to evict. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * @param size The current number of >> >> >> elements in >> >> >> > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> pane. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * @param window The {@link Window} >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > */ >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > void evictBefore(Iterable<T> elements, >> int >> >> >> size, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > EvictorContext >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > ctx); >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > /** >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * Optionally evicts elements. Called >> >> after >> >> >> > > > windowing >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > function. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * @param elements The elements >> currently >> >> in >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > > >>> pane. Use >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Iterator.remove to evict. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * @param size The current number of >> >> >> elements in >> >> >> > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> pane. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * @param window The {@link Window} >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > */ >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > void evictAfter(Iterable<T> elements, >> int >> >> >> size, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > EvictorContext ctx); } >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Such API allows to abort iteration at any >> >> point >> >> >> and >> >> >> > > > evict >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > elements in >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > any >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > order. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Thanks, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Maxim. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Vishnu >> >> >> Viswanath < >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > vishnu.viswanat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Hi Aljoscha, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Thanks. Yes the new interface seems to >> >> address >> >> >> > > points >> >> >> > > > >>> 1 and >> >> >> > > > >>> > > 2. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > of >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > *1) I am having a use case where I have >> to >> >> >> > create a >> >> >> > > > >>> custom >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Evictor >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > that >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > will evict elements from the window >> based >> >> on >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > > value >> >> >> > > > >>> > (e.g., >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > if I >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > have >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > elements are of case class Item(id: Int, >> >> >> > > type:String) >> >> >> > > > >>> then >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > evict >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > elements >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > that has type="a"). I believe this is >> not >> >> >> > currently >> >> >> > > > >>> > > possible.* >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > *2) this is somewhat related to 1) where >> >> there >> >> >> > > should >> >> >> > > > >>> be an >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > option to >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > evict >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > elements from anywhere in the window. >> not >> >> only >> >> >> > from >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > beginning of >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > window. (e.g., apply the delta function >> to >> >> all >> >> >> > > > >>> elements and >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > remove >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > all >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > those don't pass. I checked the code and >> >> evict >> >> >> > > method >> >> >> > > > >>> just >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > returns >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > number of elements to be removed and >> >> >> > > > >>> processTriggerResult >> >> >> > > > >>> > > just >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > skips >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > those >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > many elements from the beginning. * >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > *3) Add an option to enables the user to >> >> >> decide >> >> >> > if >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > eviction >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > should >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > happen before the apply function or >> after >> >> the >> >> >> > apply >> >> >> > > > >>> > function. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > Currently >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > it >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > is before the apply function, but I >> have a >> >> use >> >> >> > case >> >> >> > > > >>> where I >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > need to >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > first >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > apply the function and evict afterward.* >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > I would be interested in contributing to >> >> the >> >> >> code >> >> >> > > > base. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > Please >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > let me >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > know >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > the steps. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Vishnu Viswanath >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:49 AM, >> Aljoscha >> >> >> > Krettek < >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > aljos...@apache.org >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Hi, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > as mentioned in the thread on >> improving >> >> the >> >> >> > > > Windowing >> >> >> > > > >>> > API I >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > also >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > have a >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > design doc just for improving >> >> >> WindowEvictors. I >> >> >> > > had >> >> >> > > > >>> this >> >> >> > > > >>> > in >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > my head >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > for >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > a >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > while but was hesitant to publish but >> >> since >> >> >> > > people >> >> >> > > > >>> are >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > asking about >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > this >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > now might be a good time to post it. >> >> Here's >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > > doc: >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rr7xzlItYqvFXLyyy-Yv0vvw8f29QYAj >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > m5 >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > i9E4A_JlU/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Feedback/Suggestions are very welcome! >> >> >> Please >> >> >> > let >> >> >> > > > me >> >> >> > > > >>> know >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > what you >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > think. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > @Vishnu: Are you interested in >> >> contributing >> >> >> a >> >> >> > > > >>> solution >> >> >> > > > >>> > for >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > this to >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > the >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Flink code base? I'd be very happy to >> >> work >> >> >> with >> >> >> > > you >> >> >> > > > >>> on >> >> >> > > > >>> > > this. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Aljoscha >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > P.S. I think it would be best to keep >> >> >> > discussions >> >> >> > > > to >> >> >> > > > >>> the >> >> >> > > > >>> > ML >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > because comments on the doc will not >> be >> >> >> visible >> >> >> > > > here >> >> >> > > > >>> for >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > everyone. >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > > >
