Michael, We can only support outerJoin if both tables are keyed the same way. Lets say for example you can map both ways, however, the key for each table is of a different type. So t1 is long and t2 is string - what is the key type of the resulting GlobalKTable? So when you subsequently join to this table, and do a lookup on it, which key are you using?
Thanks, Damian On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 14:31 Michael Noll <mich...@confluent.io> wrote: > Damian, > > yes, that makes sense. > > But I am still wondering: In your example, there's no prior knowledge "can > I map from t1->t2" that Streams can leverage for joining t1 and t2 other > than blindly relying on the user to provide an appropriate KeyValueMapper > for K1/V1 of t1 -> K2/V2 of t2. In other words, if we allow the user to > provide a KeyValueMapper from t1->t2 (Streams does not know at compile time > whether this mapping will actually work), then we can also allow the user > to provide a corresponding "reverse" mapper from t2->t1. That is, we could > say that an outer join between two global tables IS supported, but if and > only if the user provides two KeyValueMappers, one for t1->t2 and one for > t2->t1. > > The left join t1->t2 (which is supported in the KIP), in general, works > only because of the existence of the user-provided KeyValueMapper from > t1->t2. The outer join, as you point out, cannot satisfied as easily > because Streams must know two mappers, t1->t2 plus t2->t1 -- otherwise the > outer join won't work. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Sure. Say we have 2 input topics t1 & t2 below: > > t1{ > > int key; > > string t2_id; > > ... > > } > > > > t2 { > > string key; > > .. > > } > > If we create global tables out of these we'd get: > > GlobalKTable<Integer, ?> t1; > > GlobalKTable<String, ?> t2; > > > > So the join can only go in 1 direction, i.e, from t1 -> t2 as in order to > > perform the join we need to use a KeyValueMapper to extract the t2 key > from > > the t1 value. > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Thanks, > > Damian > > > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 10:44 Michael Noll <mich...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > There is no outer-join for GlobalKTables as the tables may be keyed > > > > differently. So you need to use the key from the left side of the > join > > > > along with the KeyValueMapper to resolve the right side of the join. > > This > > > > wont work the other way around. > > > > > > Care to elaborate why it won't work the other way around? If, for > > example, > > > we swapped the call from leftTable.join(rightTable) to > > > rightTable.join(leftTable), that join would work, too. Perhaps I am > > > missing something though. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Matthias, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > > > There is no outer-join for GlobalKTables as the tables may be keyed > > > > differently. So you need to use the key from the left side of the > join > > > > along with the KeyValueMapper to resolve the right side of the join. > > This > > > > wont work the other way around. > > > > > > > > On the bootstrapping concern. If the application is failing before > > > > bootstrapping finishes, the problem is likely to be related to a > > terminal > > > > exception, i.e., running out of disk space, corrupt state stores etc. > > In > > > > these cases, we wouldn't want the application to continue. So i think > > > this > > > > is ok. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Damian > > > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 at 21:56 Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP Damian. Very nice motivating example! > > > > > > > > > > A few comments: > > > > > > > > > > - why is there no outer-join for GlobalKTables > > > > > - on bootstrapping GlobalKTable, could it happen that this never > > > > > finishes if the application fails before bootstrapping finishes and > > new > > > > > data gets written at the same time? Do we need to guard against > this > > > > > (seems to be a very rare corner case, so maybe not required)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/6/16 2:09 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start the discussion on KIP-99: > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > > > action?pageId=67633649 > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Damian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > *Michael G. Noll* > Product Manager | Confluent > +1 650 453 5860 <(650)%20453-5860> | @miguno <https://twitter.com/miguno> > Follow us: Twitter <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc> | Blog > <http://www.confluent.io/blog> >