We don’t need to compute cardinality in storm, maybe will do later on.  In 
addition, when we build unique user bitmap, we may need to build bitmap for 
distinct actions as well, that can be done in parallel, isn’t it?

On Jul 16, 2014, at 3:30 PM, Sa Li <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for reply, Sam. I like to count the distinct users at this point, I 
> want to be able to construct a bitmap for a time bucket, for instance 10 
> minutes. This bitmap will be stored in DB, so we can count the unique users 
> at any time windows. All we need to do is to construct that bitmap in storm, 
> we can run Hyberloglog in DB since there are open source release to use, such 
> as postgresql-hll. 
> 
> That will be great if you ‘ve already built data structure in storm, my 
> current task is just to build the bitmap, say, receiving 100 events/sec, the 
> data field can be timestamp and userID and event type,  so the input of storm 
> data structure can be t_start, t_end, userID, event type, the output that I 
> will write into DB is like
> t1:t2 100010101001010
> t2:t3  00101010100000101
> 
> I am relatively new to storm, the entire process is like this : 
> spout getting through data from kafka published, bolt creates bitmap, and 
> write into DB, and I believe I need to use different bolts to take on the 
> jobs. Please correct me if this logic is incorrect, and scripting instruction 
> is very welcome.
> 
> thanks
> 
> Alec
> 
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Sa Li <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, All
>> 
>> I like to develop a bitmap to count uniques in bolt, the process is like 
>> this, spout take the stream from kafka, emit to bolt, bolt will output an 
>> online user bitmap with predefined time window.  My plan is to use bitmap 
>> structure in redis, say set bit(key, offset, value), where key is user 
>> action and time window, offset is useriD, value is 1. I know there is a 
>> storm-redis-pubsub checkin in storm-contrib, but never use it,  i wonder if 
>> anyone ever done or thinking to make bitmap in storm.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> Alec.
> 

Reply via email to