Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r143208392
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,410
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r142891284
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,410
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r141993041
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -131,340 +116,308 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625
Hi @fhueske, the PR has been updated. Temporarily, I keep the logic for
dealing with the late data, as well as the fine-grained cache.
For the late data semantics problem, I think we need
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r140645274
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -131,340 +116,308 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r140266297
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -131,340 +116,308 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r140255052
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,442
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r140251765
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -131,340 +116,308 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r139986193
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/test/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/harness/JoinHarnessTest.scala
---
@@ -383,13 +384,158 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r139983961
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -131,340 +116,308 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r139849018
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/RowTimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,83
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r139633281
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -131,340 +116,308 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r139631978
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/RowTimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,83
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r139628583
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -131,340 +116,308 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r139611419
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -131,340 +116,308 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r139591493
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/RowTimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,83
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r139585456
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/ProcTimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,74
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625
Hi @fhueske, the PR has been updated. However, there are still some
unfinished tasks, e.g., optimise the data caching and cleaning up policies and
distinguish the `<` and `<=`signs. I want to
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137272749
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,533
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137205581
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,533
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137201317
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,533
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137168799
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,533
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137163327
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,533
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137158818
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/TimeBoundedStreamInnerJoin.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,533
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137150128
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/join/WindowJoinUtil.scala
---
@@ -115,10 +118,15 @@ object WindowJoinUtil
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137146303
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/plan/nodes/datastream/DataStreamWindowJoin.scala
---
@@ -184,4 +195,54 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137144634
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/plan/nodes/datastream/DataStreamWindowJoin.scala
---
@@ -184,4 +195,54 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625#discussion_r137137915
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/plan/rules/datastream/DataStreamWindowJoinRule.scala
---
@@ -55,8 +55,10 @@ class
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625
Thanks for the review, @fhueske. This PR is a little rough when I
committed. I'll address your comments and submit a refined version as soon as
possible.
Best, Xingcan
---
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4633
I see. Thanks :-)
---
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4633
Thanks for the review, @fhueske. I tried to consolidate the logics for
proctime and rowtime watermark processing, but failed. That's because when
using proctime, the "watermark"
GitHub user xccui opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4633
[FLINK-7564] [table] Fix Watermark semantics in RowTimeUnboundedOver
## What is the purpose of the change
This PR aims to fix the watermark boundary check problem (mentioned in
[this
thread
GitHub user xccui opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4625
[FLINK-6233] [table] Support time-bounded stream inner join in the SQL API
## What is the purpose of the change
This PR aims add an implementation of the time-bounded stream inner join
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4530
I totally understand the choice, @fhueske ð
Thanks for the refactoring.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4530
Thanks for the comment, @aljoscha. IMO, making the `timeServiceManager`
protected indeed will minimise the impact on `AbstractStreamOperator`, while
that may introduce duplicated codes
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4530
Thanks for the comments @fhueske. I will pay more attention to the coding
style.
Actually, there are many ways to implement this feature. At first, I planed
to override the `processWatermark
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4530
@fhueske Yes, the plural is better. I should have noticed that before.
This PR is updated with the new package name and an extra delay parameter
added to the co-operator.
---
If your project
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4530
Thanks for the suggestion, @aljoscha. Do you think it's appropriate to add
a new package `org.apache.flink.table.runtime.operator`?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4532#discussion_r132842811
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/api/TableEnvironment.scala
---
@@ -719,33 +715,47 @@ abstract class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4532#discussion_r132833668
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/runtime/OutputRowtimeProcessFunction.scala
---
@@ -0,0 +1,62
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4532#discussion_r132820853
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/api/StreamTableEnvironment.scala
---
@@ -667,30 +719,62 @@ abstract class
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4532#discussion_r132817252
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/api/StreamTableEnvironment.scala
---
@@ -667,30 +719,62 @@ abstract class
GitHub user xccui opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4530
[FLINK-7245] [stream] Support holding back watermarks with static delays
## What is the purpose of the change
*This pull request aims to allow the operators to support holding back
GitHub user xccui opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4297
[FLINK-6936] [streaming] Add multiple targets support for custom partitioner
Thanks for contributing to Apache Flink. Before you open your pull request,
please take the following check list
GitHub user xccui opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3768
[FLINK-6368][table] Grouping keys in stream aggregations have wrong order
âFLINK-5768 removed the `AggregateUtil.createPrepareMapFunction` stage,
who maps all grouping keys to the first n fields
Github user xccui closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3284
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user xccui commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3284
With the present situation (for gelly), shall I close this PR?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user xccui commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3284#discussion_r100455274
--- Diff: docs/dev/libs/gelly/library_methods.md ---
@@ -242,6 +242,28 @@ The algorithm takes a directed, vertex (and possibly
edge) attributed graph as i
GitHub user xccui opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3284
[FLINK-1526] [Gelly] Add Minimum Spanning Tree library method
Thanks for contributing to Apache Flink. Before you open your pull request,
please take the following check list into consideration
201 - 249 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
