Thanks! I created an issue [1] and will try to look into this during the weekend (unless someone gets to it faster :))
Cheers, V. [1]: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1652 On 4 March 2015 at 20:29, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > My gut feeling would be that the IterationRuntimeContext should be the same > across all iterations. > > It only needs to support returning a different superstep number in each > superstep. > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri < > vasilikikala...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have found the issue, but will need some help to resolve it :) > > > > In CollectionExecutor, if the superstep number is > 0 (I guess this means > > iteration?) > > a new IterationRuntimeUDFContext is created for every unary and binary > > operator, being assigned this superstep number in its constructor. > > > > However, in VertexCentricIteration, MessagingFunction and > > VertexUpdateFunction are assigned a unique IterationRuntimeContext in the > > open method of their wrappers, like this: > > > > public void open(Configuration parameters) throws Exception { > > if (getIterationRuntimeContext().getSuperstepNumber() == 1) { > > this.vertexUpdateFunction.init(getIterationRuntimeContext()); > > } > > } > > > > There is no comment, but I suppose the above was written having something > > in mind that I'm not aware of... > > Is the IterationRuntimeContext supposed to be unique and the > > CollectionExecutor has to make sure to update the superstep number > > accordingly (like it does with the aggregators) or shall we assign the > new > > context in every superstep? > > > > Thanks! > > > > -Vasia. > > > > On 4 March 2015 at 17:46, Vasiliki Kalavri <vasilikikala...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Andra, > > > > > > judging from the output, it seems that all 3 supersteps are executed in > > > the second case as well, > > > but getSuperstepNumber() is returning the wrong superstep number. > > > I confirmed that this is also the case > > > in VertexCentricConnectedComponentsITCase > > > and SpargelConnectedComponentsITCase, i.e. the superstep number is > wrong, > > > but the results produced are correct. > > > I'll try to find out what's wrong. > > > > > > -V. > > > > > > On 4 March 2015 at 16:31, Andra Lungu <lungu.an...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> I have implemented a Bulk Synchronous Version of Triangle Count. The > > code > > >> can be found here: > > >> https://github.com/andralungu/gelly-partitioning/tree/triangles > > >> > > >> In this algorithm, the messages sent differ as the superstep differs. > In > > >> order to distinguish between superstep numbers, I used the > > >> getSuperstepNumber() function. > > >> > > >> In order to test the overall implementation, I have extended > > >> MultipleProgramsTestBase... nothing unusual until here. The problem is > > >> that > > >> in CLUSTER mode, the test passes and the result is the one expected > > >> because > > >> the superstep number changes, as can be seen below: > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 2 > > >> [Messenger]Step 2 > > >> [Messenger]Step 2 > > >> [Messenger]Step 2 > > >> [Messenger]Step 2 > > >> [Messenger]Step 2 > > >> [Update]Step 2 > > >> [Update]Step 2 > > >> [Update]Step 2 > > >> [Update]Step 2 > > >> [Update]Step 2 > > >> [Messenger]Step 3 > > >> [Messenger]Step 3 > > >> [Messenger]Step 3 > > >> [Messenger]Step 3 > > >> [Messenger]Step 3 > > >> [Update]Step 3 > > >> [Update]Step 3 > > >> [Update]Step 3 > > >> > > >> For COLLECTION, the superstep number remains 1, and the result is > > >> obviously > > >> not the one I expected. > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Messenger]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> [Update]Step 1 > > >> > > >> Does anyone have an idea what could have triggered this behaviour? > > >> > > >> Thanks in advance! > > >> Andra > > >> > > > > > > > > >
