Another thing that came up after I started working on an implementation is that in addition to deprecating "retention" from the Windows interface, we also need to deprecate "segmentInterval", for the same reasons. I simply overlooked it previously. I've updated the KIP accordingly.
Hopefully, this doesn't change anyone's vote. Thanks, -John On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:31 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Thanks Guozhang, > > Thanks for that catch. to clarify, currently, events are "late" only when > they are older than the retention period. Currently, we detect this in the > processor and record it as a "skipped-record". We then do not attempt to > store the event in the window store. If a user provided a pre-configured > window store with a retention period smaller than the one they specify via > Windows#until, the segmented store will drop the update with no metric and > record a debug-level log. > > With KIP-328, with the introduction of "grace period" and moving retention > fully into the state store, we need to have metrics for both "late events" > (new records older than the grace period) and "expired window events" (new > records for windows that are no longer retained in the state store). I > already proposed metrics for the late events, and I've just updated the KIP > with metrics for the expired window events. I also updated the KIP to make > it clear that neither late nor expired events will count as > "skipped-records" any more. > > -John > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:22 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> Thanks for the updated KIP, +1 from me, and one minor suggestion: >> >> Following your suggestion of the differentiation of `skipped-records` v.s. >> `late-event-drop`, we should probably consider moving the scenarios where >> records got ignored due the window not being available any more in >> windowed >> aggregation operators from the `skipped-records` metrics recording to the >> `late-event-drop` metrics recording. >> >> >> >> Guozhang >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Thanks for the KIP! >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > -Bill >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:42 PM Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:46 AM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hello devs, >> > > > >> > > > The discussion of KIP-328 has gone some time with no new comments, >> so I >> > > am >> > > > calling for a vote! >> > > > >> > > > Here's the KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/sQU0BQ >> > > > >> > > > The basic idea is to provide: >> > > > * more usable control over update rate (vs the current state store >> > > caches) >> > > > * the final-result-for-windowed-computations feature which several >> > people >> > > > have requested >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > -John >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> -- Guozhang >> >
