Hi, Ken's approach of having a joint data type and unioning the streams is good. This will work seamlessly with checkpoints. Timo (in CC) used the same approach to implement a prototype of a multi-way join.
A Tuple won't work though because the Tuple serializer does not support null fields. You can use a Row or implement a custom, Either-like type. Best, Fabian TechnoMage <mla...@technomage.com> schrieb am Sa., 7. Apr. 2018, 17:25: > Thanks for the Tuple suggestion, I may use that. I was asking about > building a custom operator (just an idea). I have since decided I can > decompose the problem into pairs of streams and emit a stream to the next > CoFlatMap to get the result I need. Now to see if the idea works ... > > Michael > > > On Apr 7, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Ken Krugler <kkrugler_li...@transpac.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > There isn’t an operator that takes three (or more) streams, AFAIK. > > > > There is a CoFlatMapFunction that takes two different streams in, which > could be used for some types of joins. > > > > Streaming joins are (typically) windowed (bounded), by > time/count/something, so if you can maintain the required windowed state in > a ProcessFunction then you can implement whatever custom logic is required > for your join case. > > > > And for creating a unioned stream of multiple data types, one easy way > is via (e.g.) Tuple3<POJO1, POJO2, POJO3>, where only one of the three > fields is non-null for each tuple. > > > > -- Ken > > > > PS - I think the u...@flink.apache.org <mailto:u...@flink.apache.org> > list is probably a better forum for this question. > > > >> On Apr 7, 2018, at 10:47 AM, TechnoMage <mla...@technomage.com> wrote: > >> > >> In my case I have more elaborate logic to select data from the > streams. They are not all the same logical type, though I may be able to > represent them as the same Java type. My main question is whether it is > technically feasible to have a single operator that takes multiple streams > as input. For example Operator(stream1, stream2, stream3) and produces an > output stream. Can the checkpointing and other logic accomodate this if I > write sufficient custom code in the operator? > >> > >> Michael > >> > >>> On Apr 7, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Ken Krugler <kkrugler_li...@transpac.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> When you say “join” are you talking about a real join (so one or more > fields can be used as a joining key), or some other operation? > >>> > >>> For more than two streams, you can do cascading window joins via > multiple join()s that reduce your source streams down to a single stream. > >>> > >>> If the fields are the same across these streams, then a union() > followed by say a ProcessFunction that implements your joining logic could > work. > >>> > >>> Or you can convert all the streams to a common tuple format that > consists of a unions the fields, so you can do a union() and then follow > that with whatever logic is needed to actually do the join. > >>> > >>> Though I’m sure there are more elegant approaches :) > >>> > >>> — Ken > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Apr 6, 2018, at 5:04 PM, Michael Latta <mla...@technomage.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I would like to “join” several streams (>3) in a custom operator. Is > this feasible in Flink? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Michael > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------- > >>> http://about.me/kkrugler > >>> +1 530-210-6378 > >>> > >> > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > http://about.me/kkrugler > > +1 530-210-6378 > > > >
