Here it is: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11852 for the moment
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:49 AM Kostas Kloudas wrote:
> I believe you are right.
>
> It would be helpful to modify the example to delete the redundant timers
> and some
> text that explains that timers are also state
I believe you are right.
It would be helpful to modify the example to delete the redundant timers
and some
text that explains that timers are also state and users should pay
attention to that.
Would you like to open a JIRA and submit a PR?
Cheers,
Kostas
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:30 AM Flavio
Yes, you're right Kostas..in my code I was using processing time so I
forgot to replace it with event time (used by the example).
Maybe it could worth it to mention this problem in the doc..like pros and
cons. What do you think?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:27 AM Kostas Kloudas wrote:
> Hi Flavio,
Hi Flavio,
In general, deleting the redundant timers is definitely more
memory-friendly.
The reason why in the docs the code is presented the way it is, is:
1) it is mainly for pedagogical purposes, and
2) when the docs were written, Flink mechanism for deleting timers was
not efficient as it
Hi to all,
I was writing a process function similar to the one described in the Flink
docs at [1].
Basically I need to set a timeout before emitting elements.
However, the proposed approach creates a timer for every incoming
tuple..isn't it dangerous if a key receives a very big burst of events?
