Makes sense. Thanks for the feedback. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Mark Tomko <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed. If you're using MAX_SPOUT_PENDING, it's better to emit 0 or 1 > tuples and let Storm call for the next tuple when it is ready. Probably > best to to 'flatten' your streams upstream of nextTuple so that it can > simple pull one unit of work off the queue and emit it. > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Jeffery Maass <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't know how MAX_SPOUT_PENDING works, but, I bet it works by >> throttling calls to nextTuple(). If that is the case, calling >> SpoutOutputCollector.emit() multiple times within one call to nextTuple() >> would tend to over ride that throttle. >> >> Thank you for your time! >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++ >> Jeff Maass <[email protected]> >> linkedin.com/in/jeffmaass >> stackoverflow.com/users/373418/maassql >> +++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Nathan Leung <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yes. It's best not to loop for a very long time, but you can call it >>> multiple times. >>> On May 12, 2015 1:12 PM, "Adam Mitchell" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If I've got a bunch of data in memory, ready to emit, can nextTuple() >>>> go ahead and call SpoutOutputCollector.emit() many times? >>>> >>>> Or is it best to emit() once per call to nextTuple()? >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
