Hi all, Thanks Yun for bringing this topic. I missed this discussion because of the "multicast" title. After reading the design, if I understand correctly, it is proposing a custom event mach mechanism, i.e. broadcasting custom event. It is a orthogonality topic with multicasting. So I would suggest to start a new thread to discuss about it.
Regarding to broadcasting custom event: I would +1 for motivation, because we also encountered similar requirements when improving Table API & SQL before. For example, the mini-batch mechanism in blink planner will emit a special mini-batch event to the data stream to indicate this is a start of a new mini-batch. The downstream aggregation operator will buffer the data records until it receive the mini-batch event, and then process the buffer at once. This will reduce a lot of state access. However, we don't have a proper custom event mechanism currently, so we leverage the watermark as the mini-batch event (which is a little hack in my opinion). Another case is joining a huge dimension table which is stored/produced in hive daily. We can scan the hive table and shuffle to the JOIN operators by the join key to join with the main stream. Note that the dimension table is changed every day, we want to join the latest version of the hive table. Then we need to re-scan and re-shuffle the hive table once a new daily partition is produced. However, we need some special events to distinguish the boundary of different version of the dimension table. The events will be used to notify downstream operators (mainly the JOIN operator) to know "ok, I will receive a new version of the dimension table", "ok, I received the all the data of this version." >From my understanding, in order to support this feature, we might need to: 1) expose collectEvent(CustomEvent) or broadcastEvent(CustomEvent) API to users. 2) support to register the serialization and deserialization of the custom event 3) expose processEvent(int channel, CustomEvent) API to StreamOperator Regards, Jark On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 15:18, Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Before starting a work on the design doc, I would suggest to find someone > to shepherd this project. Otherwise this effort might drown among other > parallel things. I could take care of that from the runtime perspective, > however most of the changes are about the API and changes, which are > outside of my area of expertise. > > Regarding the multicast, before we start working on that, I would also > prefer to see a motivation design doc, how that feature would be used for > example for cross or theta joins in the Table API, since very similar > questions would apply to that as well. > > Piotrek > > > On 27 Aug 2019, at 08:10, SHI Xiaogang <shixiaoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Yun Gao, > > > > Thanks a lot for your clarification. > > > > Now that the notification of broadcast events requires alignment whose > > implementation, in my opinion, will affect the correctness of synchronous > > iterations, I prefer to postpone the discussion until you have completed > > the design of the new iteration library, or at least the progress > tracking > > part. Otherwise, the discussion for broadcasting events may become an > empty > > talk if it does not fit in with the final design. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Regards, > > Xiaogang > > > > Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com.invalid> 于2019年8月27日周二 上午11:33写道： > > > >> Hi Xiaogang, > >> > >> Very thanks for also considering the iteration case! :) These > points > >> are really important for iteration. As a whole, we are implementing a > new > >> iteration library on top of Stream API. As a library, most of its > >> implementation does not need to touch Runtime layer, but it really has > some > >> new requirements on the API, like the one for being able to broadcast > the > >> progressive events. To be more detail, these events indeed carry the > >> sender's index and the downstream operators need to do alignment the > events > >> from all the upstream operators. It works very similar to watermark, > thus > >> these events do not need to be contained in checkpoints. > >> > >> Some other points are also under implementation. However, since some > part > >> of the design is still under discussion internally, we may not be able > to > >> start a new discussion on iteration immediately. Besides, we should also > >> need to fix the problems that may have new requirements on the Runtime, > >> like broadcasting events, to have a complete design. Therefore, I think > we > >> may still first have the broadcasting problem settled in this thread? > Based > >> on the points learned in the discussion, now I think that we might be > able > >> to decouple the broadcasting events requirements and more generalized > >> multicasting mechanism. :) > >> > >> Best, > >> Yun > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> From:SHI Xiaogang <shixiaoga...@gmail.com> > >> Send Time:2019 Aug. 27 (Tue.) 09:16 > >> To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org>; Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com> > >> Cc:Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com> > >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Enhance Support for Multicast Communication > Pattern > >> > >> Hi, Yun Gao > >> > >> The discussion seems to move in a different direction, changing from > >> supporting multicasting to implementing new iteration libraries on data > >> streams. > >> > >> Regarding the broadcast events in iterations, many details of new > >> iteration libraries are unclear, > >> 1. How the iteration progress is determined and notified? The iterations > >> are synchronous or asynchronous? As far as i know, progress tracking for > >> asynchronous iterations is very difficult. > >> 2. Do async I/O operators allowed in the iterations? If so, how the > >> broadcast events are checkpointed and restored? How broadcast events are > >> distributed when the degree of parallelism changes? > >> 3. Do the emitted broadcast events carry the sender's index? Will they > be > >> aligned in a similar way to checkpoint barriers in downstream operators? > >> 4. In the case of synchronous iterations, do we need something similar > to > >> barrier buffers to guarantee the correctness of iterations? > >> 5. Will checkpointing be enabled in iterations? If checkpointing is > >> enabled, how will checkpoint barriers interact with broadcast events? > >> > >> I think a detailed design document for iterations will help understand > >> these problems, hencing improving the discussion. > >> > >> I also suggest a new thread for the discussion on iterations. > >> This thread should focus on multicasting and discuss those problems > >> related to multicasting, including how data is delivered and states are > >> partitioned. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Xiaogang > >> Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com.invalid> 于2019年8月26日周一 下午11:35写道： > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Very thanks for all the points raised ! > >> > >> @Piotr For using another edge to broadcast the event, I think it may not > >> be able to address the iteration case. The primary problem is that with > >> two edges we cannot ensure the order of records. However, In the > iteration > >> case, the broadcasted event is used to mark the progress of the > iteration > >> and it works like watermark, thus its position relative to the normal > >> records can not change. > >> And @Piotr, @Xiaogang, for the requirements on the state, I think > >> different options seems vary. The first option is to allow Operator<T> > to > >> broadcast a separate event and have a separate process method for this > >> event. To be detail, we may add a new type of StreamElement called Event > >> and allow Operator<T> to broadcastEmit Event. Then in the received > side, we > >> could add a new `processEvent` method to the (Keyed)ProcessFunction. > >> Similar to the broadcast side of KeyedBroadcastProcessFunction, in this > new > >> method users cannot access keyed state with specific key, but can > register > >> a state function to touch all the elements in the keyed state. This > option > >> needs to modify the runtime to support the new type of StreamElement, > but > >> it does not affect the semantics of states and thus it has no > requirements > >> on state. > >> The second option is to allow Operator<T> to broadcastEmit T and in the > >> receiver side, user can process the broadcast element with the existing > >> process method. This option is consistent with the OperatorState, but > for > >> keyedState we may send a record to tasks that do not containing the > >> corresponding keyed state, thus it should require some changes on the > State. > >> The third option is to support the generic Multicast. For keyedState it > >> also meets the problem of inconsistency between network partitioner and > >> keyed state partitioner, and if we want to rely on it to implement the > >> non-key join, it should be also meet the problem of cannot control the > >> partitioning of operator state. Therefore, it should also require some > >> changes on the State. > >> Then for the different scenarios proposed, the iteration case in fact > >> requires exactly the ability to broadcast a different event type. In the > >> iteration the fields of the progress event are in fact different from > that > >> of normal records. It does not contain actual value but contains some > >> fields for the downstream operators to align the events and track the > >> progress. Therefore, broadcasting a different event type is able to > solve > >> the iteration case without the requirements on the state. Besides, > allowing > >> the operator to broadcast a separate event may also facilitate some > other > >> user cases, for example, users may notify the downstream operators to > >> change logic if some patterns are matched. The notification might be > >> different from the normal records and users do not need to uniform them > >> with a wrapper type manually if the operators are able to broadcast a > >> separate event. However, it truly cannot address the non-key join > >> scenarios. > >> Since allowing broadcasting a separate event seems to be able to serve > as > >> a standalone functionality, and it does not require change on the > state, I > >> am thinking that is it possible for us to partition to multiple steps > and > >> supports broadcasting events first ? At the same time we could also > >> continue working on other options to support more scenarios like non-key > >> join and they seems to requires more thoughts. > >> > >> Best, > >> Yun > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> From:Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com> > >> Send Time:2019 Aug. 26 (Mon.) 18:59 > >> To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > >> Cc:Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com> > >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Enhance Support for Multicast Communication > Pattern > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Xiaogang, those things worry me the most. > >> 1. Regarding the broadcasting, doesn’t the BroadcastState [1] cover our > >> issues? Can not we construct a job graph, where one operator has two > >> outputs, one keyed another broadcasted, which are wired together back to > >> the KeyedBroadcastProcessFunction or BroadcastProcessFunction? > >> > >> 2. Multicast on keyed streams, might be done by iterating over all of > the > >> keys. However I have a feeling that might not be the feature which > >> distributed cross/theta joins would want, since they would probably > need a > >> guarantee to have only a single key per operator instance. > >> > >> Kurt, by broadcast optimisation do you mean [2]? > >> > >> I’m not sure if we should split the discussion yet. Most of the changes > >> required by either multicast or broadcast will be in the API/state > layers. > >> Runtime changes for broadcast would be almost none (just exposing > existing > >> features) and for multicast they shouldn't be huge as well. However > maybe > >> we should consider those two things together at the API level, so that > we > >> do not make wrong decisions when just looking at the simpler/more narrow > >> broadcast support? > >> > >> Piotrek > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/stream/state/broadcast_state.html > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/7713 > >> > >> > >> On 26 Aug 2019, at 09:35, Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From SQL's perspective, distributed cross join is a valid feature but > not > >> very > >> urgent. Actually this discuss reminds me about another useful feature > >> (sorry > >> for the distraction): > >> > >> when doing broadcast in batch shuffle mode, we can make each producer > only > >> write one copy of the output data, but not for every consumer. Broadcast > >> join > >> is much more useful, and this is a very important optimization. Not sure > >> if > >> we > >> have already consider this. > >> > >> Best, > >> Kurt > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:16 PM Guowei Ma <guowei....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Yun for bringing up this discussion and very thanks for all the > >> deep > >> thoughts! > >> > >> For now, I think this discussion contains two scenarios: one if for > >> iteration library support and the other is for SQL join support. I think > >> both of the two scenarios are useful but they seem to have different > best > >> suitable solutions. For making the discussion more clear, I would > suggest > >> to split the discussion into two threads. > >> > >> And I agree with Piotr that it is very tricky that a keyed stream > received > >> a "broadcast element". So we may add some new interfaces, which could > >> broadcast or process some special "broadcast event". In that way > >> "broadcast > >> event" will not be sent with the normal process. > >> > >> Best, > >> Guowei > >> > >> > >> SHI Xiaogang <shixiaoga...@gmail.com> 于2019年8月26日周一 上午9:27写道： > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I also think that multicasting is a necessity in Flink, but more details > >> are needed to be considered. > >> > >> Currently network is tightly coupled with states in Flink to achieve > >> automatic scaling. We can only access keyed states in keyed streams and > >> operator states in all streams. > >> In the concrete example of theta-joins implemented with mutlticasting, > >> the > >> following questions exist: > >> > >> - In which type of states will the data be stored? Do we need another > >> type of states which is coupled with multicasting streams? > >> - How to ensure the consistency between network and states when jobs > >> scale out or scale in? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Xiaogang > >> > >> Xingcan Cui <xingc...@gmail.com> 于2019年8月25日周日 上午10:03写道： > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Sorry for joining this thread late. Basically, I think enabling > >> multicast > >> pattern could be the right direction, but more detailed implementation > >> policies need to be discussed. > >> > >> Two years ago, I filed an issue [1] about the multicast API. However, > >> due > >> to some reasons, it was laid aside. After that, when I tried to > >> cherry-pick > >> the change for experimental use, I found the return type of > >> `selectChannels()` method had changed from `int[]` to `int`, which > >> makes > >> the old implementation not work anymore. > >> > >> From my side, the multicast has always been used for theta-join. As far > >> as > >> I know, it’s an essential requirement for some sophisticated joining > >> algorithms. Until now, the Flink non-equi joins can still only be > >> executed > >> single-threaded. If we'd like to make some improvements on this, we > >> should > >> first take some measures to support multicast pattern. > >> > >> Best, > >> Xingcan > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6936 > >> > >> On Aug 24, 2019, at 5:54 AM, Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Piotr, > >> > >> Thanks for the explanation. > >> Agreed that the broadcastEmit(record) is a better choice for > >> broadcasting > >> for the iterations. > >> As broadcasting for the iterations is the first motivation, let's > >> support > >> it first. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Zhu Zhu > >> > >> Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com.invalid> 于2019年8月23日周五 下午11:56写道： > >> > >> Hi Piotr, > >> > >> Very thanks for the suggestions! > >> > >> Totally agree with that we could first focus on the broadcast > >> scenarios and exposing the broadcastEmit method first considering > >> the > >> semantics and performance. > >> > >> For the keyed stream, I also agree with that broadcasting keyed > >> records to all the tasks may be confused considering the semantics > >> of > >> keyed > >> partitioner. However, in the iteration case supporting broadcast > >> over > >> keyed > >> partitioner should be required since users may create any subgraph > >> for > >> the > >> iteration body, including the operators with key. I think a possible > >> solution to this issue is to introduce another data type for > >> 'broadcastEmit'. For example, for an operator Operator<T>, it may > >> broadcast > >> emit another type E instead of T, and the transmitting E will bypass > >> the > >> partitioner and setting keyed context. This should result in the > >> design > >> to > >> introduce customized operator event (option 1 in the document). The > >> cost of > >> this method is that we need to introduce a new type of StreamElement > >> and > >> new interface for this type, but it should be suitable for both > >> keyed > >> or > >> non-keyed partitioner. > >> > >> Best, > >> Yun > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> From:Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com> > >> Send Time:2019 Aug. 23 (Fri.) 22:29 > >> To:Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> > >> Cc:dev <dev@flink.apache.org>; Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com> > >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Enhance Support for Multicast Communication > >> Pattern > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> If the primary motivation is broadcasting (for the iterations) and > >> we > >> have > >> no immediate need for multicast (cross join), I would prefer to > >> first > >> expose broadcast via the DataStream API and only later, once we > >> finally > >> need it, support multicast. As I wrote, multicast would be more > >> challenging > >> to implement, with more complicated runtime and API. And re-using > >> multicast > >> just to support broadcast doesn’t have much sense: > >> > >> 1. It’s a bit obfuscated. It’s easier to understand > >> collectBroadcast(record) or broadcastEmit(record) compared to some > >> multicast channel selector that just happens to return all of the > >> channels. > >> 2. There are performance benefits of explicitly calling > >> `RecordWriter#broadcastEmit`. > >> > >> > >> On a different note, what would be the semantic of such broadcast > >> emit > >> on > >> KeyedStream? Would it be supported? Or would we limit support only > >> to > >> the > >> non-keyed streams? > >> > >> Piotrek > >> > >> On 23 Aug 2019, at 12:48, Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Piotr, > >> > >> Users asked for this feature sometimes ago when they migrating > >> batch > >> jobs to Flink(Blink). > >> It's not very urgent as they have taken some workarounds to solve > >> it.(like partitioning data set to different job vertices) > >> So it's fine to not make it top priority. > >> > >> Anyway, as a commonly known scenario, I think users can benefit > >> from > >> cross join sooner or later. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Zhu Zhu > >> > >> Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com <mailto:pi...@ververica.com>> > >> 于2019年8月23日周五 下午6:19写道： > >> Hi, > >> > >> Thanks for the answers :) Ok I understand the full picture now. +1 > >> from > >> my side on solving this issue somehow. But before we start > >> discussing > >> how > >> to solve it one last control question: > >> > >> I guess this multicast is intended to be used in blink planner, > >> right? > >> Assuming that we implement the multicast support now, when would it > >> be > >> used > >> by the blink? I would like to avoid a scenario, where we implement > >> an > >> unused feature and we keep maintaining it for a long period of time. > >> > >> Piotrek > >> > >> PS, try to include motivating examples, including concrete ones in > >> the > >> proposals/design docs, for example in the very first paragraph. > >> Especially > >> if it’s a commonly known feature like cross join :) > >> > >> On 23 Aug 2019, at 11:38, Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com.INVALID> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Piotr, > >> > >> Thanks a lot for sharing the thoughts! > >> > >> For the iteration, agree with that multicasting is not > >> necessary. Exploring the broadcast interface to Output of the > >> operators > >> in > >> some way should also solve this issue, and I think it should be even > >> more > >> convenient to have the broadcast method for the iteration. > >> > >> Also thanks Zhu Zhu for the cross join case! > >> Best, > >> Yun > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> From:Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com <mailto:reed...@gmail.com>> > >> Send Time:2019 Aug. 23 (Fri.) 17:25 > >> To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org <mailto:dev@flink.apache.org>> > >> Cc:Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com <mailto:yungao...@aliyun.com>> > >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Enhance Support for Multicast Communication > >> Pattern > >> > >> Hi Piotr, > >> > >> Yes you are right it's a distributed cross join requirement. > >> Broadcast join can help with cross join cases. But users cannot > >> use > >> it > >> if the data set to join is too large to fit into one subtask. > >> > >> Sorry for left some details behind. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Zhu Zhu > >> Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com <mailto:pi...@ververica.com>> > >> 于2019年8月23日周五 下午4:57写道： > >> Hi Yun and Zhu Zhu, > >> > >> Thanks for the more detailed example Zhu Zhu. > >> > >> As far as I understand for the iterations example we do not need > >> multicasting. Regarding the Join example, I don’t fully understand > >> it. > >> The > >> example that Zhu Zhu presented has a drawback of sending both tables > >> to > >> multiple nodes. What’s the benefit of using broadcast join over a > >> hash > >> join > >> in such case? As far as I know, the biggest benefit of using > >> broadcast > >> join > >> instead of hash join is that we can avoid sending the larger table > >> over > >> the > >> network, because we can perform the join locally. In this example we > >> are > >> sending both of the tables to multiple nodes, which should defeat > >> the > >> purpose. > >> > >> Is it about implementing cross join or near cross joins in a > >> distributed fashion? > >> > >> if we introduce a new MulticastRecordWriter > >> > >> That’s one of the solutions. It might have a drawback of 3 class > >> virtualisation problem (We have RecordWriter and > >> BroadcastRecordWriter > >> already). With up to two implementations, JVM is able to > >> devirtualise > >> the > >> calls. > >> > >> Previously I was also thinking about just providing two different > >> ChannelSelector interfaces. One with `int[]` and > >> `SingleChannelSelector` > >> with plain `int` and based on that, RecordWriter could perform some > >> magic > >> (worst case scenario `instaceof` checks). > >> > >> Another solution might be to change `ChannelSelector` interface > >> into > >> an iterator. > >> > >> But let's discuss the details after we agree on implementing this. > >> > >> Piotrek > >> > >> On 23 Aug 2019, at 10:20, Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com <mailto: > >> yungao...@aliyun.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Piotr, > >> > >> Thanks a lot for the suggestions! > >> > >> The core motivation of this discussion is to implement a > >> new > >> iteration library on the DataStream, and it requires to insert > >> special > >> records in the stream to notify the progress of the iteration. The > >> mechanism of such records is very similar to the current Watermark, > >> and > >> we > >> meet the problem of sending normal records according to the > >> partition > >> (Rebalance, etc..) and also be able to broadcast the inserted > >> progress > >> records to all the connected records. I have read the notes in the > >> google > >> doc and I totally agree with that exploring the broadcast interface > >> in > >> RecordWriter in some way is able to solve this issue. > >> > >> Regarding to `int[] ChannelSelector#selectChannels()`, I'm > >> wondering if we introduce a new MulticastRecordWriter and left the > >> current > >> RecordWriter untouched, could we avoid the performance degradation ? > >> Since > >> with such a modification the normal RecordWriter does not need to > >> iterate > >> the return array by ChannelSelector, and the only difference will be > >> returning an array instead of an integer, and accessing the first > >> element > >> of the returned array instead of reading the integer directly. > >> > >> Best, > >> Yun > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> From:Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com <mailto: > >> pi...@ververica.com > >> > >> Send Time:2019 Aug. 23 (Fri.) 15:20 > >> To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org <mailto:dev@flink.apache.org>> > >> Cc:Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com <mailto:yungao...@aliyun.com>> > >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Enhance Support for Multicast Communication > >> Pattern > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Yun: > >> > >> Thanks for proposing the idea. I have checked the document and > >> left > >> couple of questions there, but it might be better to answer them > >> here. > >> > >> What is the exact motivation and what problems do you want to > >> solve? > >> We have dropped multicast support from the network stack [1] for two > >> reasons: > >> 1. Performance > >> 2. Code simplicity > >> > >> The proposal to re introduce `int[] > >> ChannelSelector#selectChannels()` > >> would revert those changes. At that time we were thinking about a > >> way > >> how > >> to keep the multicast support on the network level, while keeping > >> the > >> performance and simplicity for non multicast cases and there are > >> ways > >> to > >> achieve that. However they would add extra complexity to Flink, > >> which > >> it > >> would be better to avoid. > >> > >> On the other hand, supporting dual pattern: standard partitioning > >> or > >> broadcasting is easy to do, as LatencyMarkers are doing exactly > >> that. > >> It > >> would be just a matter of exposing this to the user in some way. So > >> before > >> we go any further, can you describe your use cases/motivation? Isn’t > >> mix of > >> standard partitioning and broadcasting enough? Do we need > >> multicasting? > >> > >> Zhu: > >> > >> Could you rephrase your example? I didn’t quite understand it. > >> > >> Piotrek > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10662 < > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10662> < > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10662 < > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10662>> > >> > >> On 23 Aug 2019, at 09:17, Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com <mailto: > >> reed...@gmail.com> <mailto:reed...@gmail.com <mailto: > >> reed...@gmail.com > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Yun for starting this discussion. > >> I think the multicasting can be very helpful in certain cases. > >> > >> I have received requirements from users that they want to do > >> broadcast > >> join, while the data set to broadcast is too large to fit in one > >> task. > >> Thus the requirement turned out to be to support cartesian > >> product > >> of > >> 2 > >> data set(one of which can be infinite stream). > >> For example, A(parallelism=2) broadcast join B(parallelism=2) in > >> JobVertex > >> C. > >> The idea to is have 4 C subtasks to deal with different > >> combinations > >> of A/B > >> partitions, like C1(A1,B1), C2(A1,B2), C3(A2,B1), C4(A2,B2). > >> This requires one record to be sent to multiple downstream > >> subtasks, > >> but > >> not to all subtasks. > >> > >> With current interface this is not supported, as one record can > >> only > >> be > >> sent to one subtask, or to all subtasks of a JobVertex. > >> And the user had to split the broadcast data set manually to > >> several > >> different JobVertices, which is hard to maintain and extend. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Zhu Zhu > >> > >> Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com.invalid <mailto: > >> yungao...@aliyun.com.invalid <mailto:yungao...@aliyun.com.invalid > >> > >> 于2019年8月22日周四 下午8:42写道： > >> > >> Hi everyone, > >> In some scenarios we met a requirement that some operators > >> want > >> to > >> send records to theirs downstream operators with an multicast > >> communication > >> pattern. In detail, for some records, the operators want to send > >> them > >> according to the partitioner (for example, Rebalance), and for > >> some > >> other > >> records, the operators want to send them to all the connected > >> operators and > >> tasks. Such a communication pattern could be viewed as a kind of > >> multicast: > >> it does not broadcast every record, but some record will indeed > >> be > >> sent to > >> multiple downstream operators. > >> > >> However, we found that this kind of communication pattern seems > >> could > >> not > >> be implemented rightly if the operators have multiple consumers > >> with > >> different parallelism, using the customized partitioner. To solve > >> the > >> above > >> problem, we propose to enhance the support for such kind of > >> irregular > >> communication pattern. We think there may be two options: > >> > >> 1. Support a kind of customized operator events, which share > >> much > >> similarity with Watermark, and these events can be broadcasted to > >> the > >> downstream operators separately. > >> 2. Let the channel selector supports multicast, and also add > >> the > >> separate RecordWriter implementation to avoid impacting the > >> performance of > >> the channel selector that does not need multicast. > >> > >> The problem and options are detailed in > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1npi5c_SeP68KuT2lNdKd8G7toGR_lxQCGOnZm_hVMks/edit?usp=sharing > >> < > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1npi5c_SeP68KuT2lNdKd8G7toGR_lxQCGOnZm_hVMks/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> < > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1npi5c_SeP68KuT2lNdKd8G7toGR_lxQCGOnZm_hVMks/edit?usp=sharing > >> < > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1npi5c_SeP68KuT2lNdKd8G7toGR_lxQCGOnZm_hVMks/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> > >> We are also wondering if there are other methods to implement > >> this > >> requirement with or without changing Runtime. Very thanks for any > >> feedbacks > >> ! > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> Yun > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >
