wrote:
> For `getMinSegmentGreaterThanEqualToTimestamp` , the email was indeed
> meant for #4162.
>
> Pardon.
>
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For `SessionKeySchema#segmentsToSearch`: for session store, multiple
>
For `getMinSegmentGreaterThanEqualToTimestamp` , the email was indeed meant
for #4162.
Pardon.
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For `SessionKeySchema#segmentsToSearch`: for session store, multiple
> sessions may merge together when re
For `SessionKeySchema#segmentsToSearch`: for session store, multiple
sessions may merge together when receiving late arrived records. When I
looked at the code, it seems that we have merged the sessions during
aggregations to effectively move the sessions between segments. So I'm not
100% certain
, from, to);
The minSegment would be first in List and maxSegment would be last in List.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was reading code for SessionKeySchema#segmentsToSearch() where:
>
> public List segmentsToSearch(final Segmen
Hi,
I was reading code for SessionKeySchema#segmentsToSearch() where:
public List segmentsToSearch(final Segments segments, final
long from, final long to) {
return segments.segments(from, Long.MAX_VALUE);
I wonder why the parameter to is ignored.
WindowKeySchema#segmentsToSearch
