18:12
> To: dev@flink.apache.org ; Martijn Visser
>
> Cc: Yu Chen
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
> improved state compatibility on parallelism change
>
> How exactly are you tuning SQL jobs without compiled plans while
> e
Visser
Cc: Yu Chen
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
improved state compatibility on parallelism change
How exactly are you tuning SQL jobs without compiled plans while
ensuring that the resulting compiled plans are compatible? That's
explicitly
From: Piotr Nowojski
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 14:50
To: Zhanghao Chen
Cc: Chesnay Schepler ; dev@flink.apache.org
; Yu Chen
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
improved state compatibility on parallelism change
Hey
AFAIK
> From: Piotr Nowojski
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 14:50
> To: Zhanghao Chen
> Cc: Chesnay Schepler ; dev@flink.apache.org
> ; Yu Chen
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
> improved state compatibility on parallelism c
l, WDYT?
>
> Best,
> Zhanghao Chen
> --
> *From:* Chesnay Schepler
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2024 2:01
> *To:* dev@flink.apache.org ; Zhanghao Chen <
> zhanghao.c...@outlook.com>; Piotr Nowojski ; Yu
> Chen
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCU
er
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2024 2:01
> *To:* dev@flink.apache.org ; Zhanghao Chen <
> zhanghao.c...@outlook.com>; Piotr Nowojski ; Yu
> Chen
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID
> generation for improved state compatibility on pa
Schepler
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 2:01
To: dev@flink.apache.org ; Zhanghao Chen
; Piotr Nowojski ; Yu Chen
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
improved state compatibility on parallelism change
The FLIP is a bit weird to be honest. It only
___
From: Zhanghao Chen
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 10:46
To: Piotr Nowojski ; Yu Chen
Cc: dev@flink.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
improved state compatibility on parallelism change
Thanks for the input, Piotr. It might still
hanghao Chen
From: Zhanghao Chen
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 10:46
To: Piotr Nowojski ; Yu Chen
Cc: dev@flink.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
improved state compatibility on parallelism change
Thanks for the input, Pio
o Chen
From: Piotr Nowojski
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 1:55
To: Yu Chen
Cc: Zhanghao Chen ; dev@flink.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
improved state compatibility on parallelism change
Hi,
Using unaligned checkpoints is orth
-
> *From:* Yu Chen
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2024 13:52
> *To:* dev@flink.apache.org
> *Cc:* Piotr Nowojski ; zhanghao.c...@outlook.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID
> generation for improved state compatibility on parallelism
you have any suggestions on this?
>
> Best,
> Zhanghao Chen
> From: Yu Chen
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 13:52
> To: dev@flink.apache.org
> Cc: Piotr Nowojski ; zhanghao.c...@outlook.com
>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
&
/state/checkpointing_under_backpressure/
Best,
Zhanghao Chen
From: David Morávek
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 6:26
To: dev@flink.apache.org ; Piotr Nowojski
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
improved state compatibility on parallelism chan
/flink/flink-docs-release-1.18/docs/ops/state/checkpointing_under_backpressure/
>
>
> Best,
> Zhanghao Chen
>
> From: David Morávek
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 6:26
> To: dev@flink.apache.org ; Piotr Nowojski
>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: C
From: David Morávek
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 6:26
To: dev@flink.apache.org ; Piotr Nowojski
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID generation for
improved state compatibility on parallelism change
Hi Zhanghao,
Thanks for the FLIP
Hi Zhanghao,
Thanks for the FLIP. What you're proposing makes a lot of sense +1
Have you thought about how this works with unaligned checkpoints in case
you go from unchained to chained? I think it should be fine because this
scenario should only apply to forward/rebalance scenarios where we, as
Dear Flink devs,
I'd like to start a discussion on FLIP 411: Chaining-agnostic Operator ID
generation for improved state compatibility on parallelism change [1].
Currently, when user does not explicitly set operator UIDs, the chaining
behavior will still affect state compatibility, as the
17 matches
Mail list logo
