Hi Jark,

yes I think enough time has passed. We can start implementing the changes. What do you think Fabian?

If there are no objections, I will create the subtasks in Jira today. For FLIP-11/1 I already have implemented a prototype, I just have to do some refactoring/documentation before opening a PR.


Am 18/09/16 um 04:46 schrieb Jark Wu:
Hi all,

It seems that there’s no objections to the window design. So could we open 
subtasks to start working on it now ?

- Jark Wu

在 2016年9月7日,下午4:29,Jark Wu <wuchong...@alibaba-inc.com> 写道:

Hi Fabian,

Thanks for sharing your ideas.

They all make sense to me. Regarding to reassigning timestamp, I do not have an 
use case. I come up with this because DataStream has a TimestampAssigner :)

+1 for this FLIP.

- Jark Wu

在 2016年9月7日,下午2:59,Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com <mailto:fhue...@gmail.com>> 


thanks for your comments and questions!
Actually, you are bringing up the points that Timo and I discussed the most
when designing the FLIP ;-)

- We also thought about the syntactic shortcut for running aggregates like
you proposed (table.groupBy(‘a).select(…)). Our motivation to not allow
this shortcut is to prevent users from accidentally performing a
"dangerous" operation. The problem with unbounded sliding row-windows is
that their state does never expire. If you have an evolving key space, you
will likely run into problems at some point because the operator state
grows too large. IMO, a row-window session is a better approach, because it
defines a timeout after which state can be discarded. groupBy.select is a
very common operation in batch but its semantics in streaming are very
different. In my opinion it makes sense to make users aware of these
differences through the API.

- Reassigning timestamps and watermarks is a very delicate issue. You are
right, that Calcite exposes this field which is necessary due to the
semantics of SQL. However, also in Calcite you cannot freely choose the
timestamp attribute for streaming queries (it must be a monotone or
quasi-monotone attribute) which is hard to reason about (and guarantee)
after a few operators have been applied. Streaming tables in Flink will
likely have a time attribute which is identical to the initial rowtime.
However, Flink does modify timestamps internally, e.g., for records that
are emitted from time windows, in order to ensure that consecutive windows
perform as expected. Modify or reassign timestamps in the middle of a job
can result in unexpected results which are very hard to reason about. Do
you have a concrete use case in mind for reassigning timestamps?

- The idea to represent rowtime and systime as object is good. Our
motivation to go for reserved Scala symbols was to have a uniform syntax
with windows over streaming and batch tables. On batch tables you can
compute time windows basically over every time attribute (they are treated
similar to grouping attributes with a bit of extra logic to extract the
grouping key for sliding and session windows). If you write window(Tumble
over 10.minutes on 'rowtime) on a streaming table, 'rowtime would indicate
event-time. On a batch table with a 'rowtime attribute, the same operator
would be internally converted into a group by. By going for the object
approach we would lose this compatibility (or would need to introduce an
additional column attribute to specifiy the window attribute for batch

As usual some of the design decisions are based on preferences.
Do they make sense to you? Let me know what you think.

Best, Fabian

2016-09-07 5:12 GMT+02:00 Jark Wu <wuchong...@alibaba-inc.com 

Hi all,

I'm on vacation for about five days , sorry to have missed this great FLIP.

Yes, the non-windowed aggregates is a special case of row-window. And the
proposal looks really good.  Can we have a simplified form for the special
case? Such as : 
can be simplified to  table.groupBy(‘a).select(…). The latter will actually
call the former.

Another question is about the rowtime. As the FLIP said, DataStream and
StreamTableSource is responsible to assign timestamps and watermarks,
furthermore “rowtime” and “systemtime” are not real column. IMO, it is
different with Calcite’s rowtime, which is a real column in the table. In
FLIP's way, we will lose some flexibility. Because the timestamp column may
be created after some transformations or join operation, not created at
beginning. So why do we have to define rowtime at beginning? (because of
watermark?)     Can we have a way to define rowtime after source table like

Regarding to “allowLateness” method. I come up a trick that we can make
‘rowtime and ‘system to be a Scala object, not a symbol expression. The API
will looks like this :

window(Tumble over 10.minutes on rowtime allowLateness as ‘w)

The implementation will look like this:

class TumblingWindow(size: Expression) extends Window {
  def on(time: rowtime.type): TumblingEventTimeWindow =
      new TumblingEventTimeWindow(alias, ‘rowtime, size)        // has
allowLateness() method

  def on(time: systemtime.type): TumblingProcessingTimeWindow=
     new TumblingProcessingTimeWindow(alias, ‘systemtime, size)
// hasn’t allowLateness() method
object rowtime
object systemtime

What do you think about this?

- Jark Wu

在 2016年9月6日,下午11:00,Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org 
<mailto:twal...@apache.org>> 写道:

Hi all,

I thought about the API of the FLIP again. If we allow the "systemtime"
attribute, we cannot implement a nice method chaining where the user can
define a "allowLateness" only on event time. So even if the user expressed
that "systemtime" is used we have to offer a "allowLateness" method because
we have to assume that this attribute can also be the batch event time
column, which is not very nice.
class TumblingWindow(size: Expression) extends Window {
def on(timeField: Expression): TumblingEventTimeWindow =
   new TumblingEventTimeWindow(alias, timeField, size) // has
allowLateness() method

What do you think?


Am 05/09/16 um 10:41 schrieb Fabian Hueske:
Hi Jark,

you had asked for non-windowed aggregates in the Table API a few times.
FLIP-11 proposes row-window aggregates which are a generalization of
running aggregates (SlideRow unboundedPreceding).

Can you have a look at the FLIP and give feedback whether this is what
are looking for?
Improvement suggestions are very welcome as well.

Thank you,

2016-09-01 16:12 GMT+02:00 Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org 

Hi all!

Fabian and I worked on a FLIP for Stream Aggregations in the Table API.
You can find the FLIP-11 here:


Motivation for the FLIP:

The Table API is a declarative API to define queries on static and
streaming tables. So far, only projection, selection, and union are
supported operations on streaming tables.

This FLIP proposes to add support for different types of aggregations
top of streaming tables. In particular, we seek to support:

- Group-window aggregates, i.e., aggregates which are computed for a
of elements. A (time or row-count) window is required to bound the
input stream into a finite group.

- Row-window aggregates, i.e., aggregates which are computed for each
based on a window (range) of preceding and succeeding rows.
Each type of aggregate shall be supported on keyed/grouped or
non-keyed/grouped data streams for streaming tables as well as batch
We are looking forward to your feedback.


Freundliche Grüße / Kind Regards

Timo Walther

Follow me: @twalthr
https://www.linkedin.com/in/twalthr <https://www.linkedin.com/in/twalthr>

Freundliche Grüße / Kind Regards

Timo Walther

Follow me: @twalthr

Reply via email to