Here's the issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3080
-V.
On 25 November 2015 at 14:38, Gyula Fóra wrote:
> Yes, please
>
> Vasiliki Kalavri ezt írta (időpont: 2015. nov.
> 25., Sze, 14:37):
>
> > So, do we all agree that the current behavior is not correct? Shall I
> open
> > a J
Vasia Kalavri created FLINK-3080:
Summary: Cannot union a data stream with a product of itself
Key: FLINK-3080
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3080
Project: Flink
Issue Type
Yes, please
Vasiliki Kalavri ezt írta (időpont: 2015. nov.
25., Sze, 14:37):
> So, do we all agree that the current behavior is not correct? Shall I open
> a JIRA about this?
>
> On 25 November 2015 at 13:58, Gyula Fóra wrote:
>
> > Well it kind of depends on what definition of union are we usi
So, do we all agree that the current behavior is not correct? Shall I open
a JIRA about this?
On 25 November 2015 at 13:58, Gyula Fóra wrote:
> Well it kind of depends on what definition of union are we using. If this
> is a union in a set theoretical way we can argue that the union of a stream
Well it kind of depends on what definition of union are we using. If this
is a union in a set theoretical way we can argue that the union of a stream
with itself should be the same stream because it contains exactly the same
elements with the same timestamps and lineage.
On the other hand stream a
Hi,
the operation “stream.union(stream.map(id))” is equivalent to
“stream.union(stream)” isn’t it? So it might also duplicate the data.
- Christoph
> On 25 Nov 2015, at 11:24, Stephan Ewen wrote:
>
> "stream.union(stream.map(..))" should definitely be possible. Not sure why
> this is not per
"stream.union(stream.map(..))" should definitely be possible. Not sure why
this is not permitted.
"stream.union(stream)" would contain each element twice, so should either
give an error or actually union (or duplicate) elements...
Stephan
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Gyula Fóra wrote:
>
Yes, I am not sure if this the intentional behaviour. I think you are
supposed to be able to do the things you described.
stream.union(stream.map(..)) and things like this are fair operations. Also
maybe stream.union(stream) should just give stream instead of an error.
Could someone comment on th
Hi squirrels,
when porting the gelly streaming code from 0.9 to 0.10 today with Paris, we
hit an exception in union: "*A DataStream cannot be unioned with itself*".
The code raising this exception looks like this:
stream.union(stream.map(...)).
Taking a look into the union code, we see that it's
