[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16106672#comment-16106672
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-7213:
---------------------------------------
Github user StefanRRichter commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4353
BTW, one alternative I was once considering for the scale down case is
merging state handles that are backed by different physical files in one
logical state handle, using something based on `MultiStreamStateHandle`. That
would require minor changes in how the backends currently iterate the handles
and some calculation of virtual offsets near the `StateAssignmentOperation`,
mapping the old physical file offsets to the new logical offsets in the stream
that gives a consecutive logical view over the files. Then, the whole code
would never again deal with this detail. Wonder if this is worth the effort?
> Introduce state management by OperatorID in TaskManager
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-7213
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7213
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: State Backends, Checkpointing
> Affects Versions: 1.4.0
> Reporter: Stefan Richter
> Assignee: Stefan Richter
>
> Flink-5892 introduced the job manager / checkpoint coordinator part of
> managing state on the operator level instead of the task level by introducing
> explicit operator_id -> state mappings. However, this explicit mapping was
> not introduced in the task manager side, so the explicit mapping is still
> converted into a mapping that suits the implicit operator chain order.
> We should also introduce explicit operator ids to state management on the
> task manager.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
