Created: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXMALHAR-2488
~ Bhupesh
___
Bhupesh Chawda
E: bhup...@datatorrent.com | Twitter: @bhupeshsc
www.datatorrent.com | apex.apache.org
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Bhupesh Chawda
wrote:
>
​Looks like it would be okay to remove Join Impl 1 from Malhar.
The windowed merge implementation can be worked on and simplified to
address simpler use cases and ease of use.
Before proceeding with this, would be good to hear what other community
members think.
Will proceed with creating the JIRA
-->
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Bhupesh Chawda
wrote:
> The main difference is in the implementations of managed state that are
> used in the two join impls.
> The advantage mainly comes from the fact that Join impl 1 uses
> ManagedTimeStateImpl (key buckets + time buckets) while Join impl 2
The main difference is in the implementations of managed state that are
used in the two join impls.
The advantage mainly comes from the fact that Join impl 1 uses
ManagedTimeStateImpl (key buckets + time buckets) while Join impl 2 is
based on the other two implementations (both with the notion of e
There is one more important difference not mentioned:
Join Impl 1 doesn't work and Join Impl 2 does :)
Can you clarify why a (working) Join Impl 1 would perform better? And if it
is the case, how the amount of work fixing 1 would stack up against
improving 2?
Join Impl 2 has greater flexibility
