Hi Fabian, thanks for looking into this. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help!
Cheers, V. On 3 April 2015 at 22:31, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the nice setup! > I could easily reproduce the exception you are facing. > But that's the only good news so far :-( > > I checked the plans and both are valid and should compute the correct > result for the program. > The split-of solution set delta is required because the it needs to be > repartitioned (without the annotation, the optimizer does not know that it > is in fact already correctly partitioned). One thing that made me a bit > suspicious is that the solution set delta partitioning is marked with a > Pipeline-Breaker. The pipeline breaker shouldn't make a semantic > difference, but I am not sure if it is really required and also that part > of the codebase was recently worked on. > > So, a closer look and more debugging is necessary to figure out what not > working correctly here... > > > 2015-04-03 14:14 GMT+02:00 Vasiliki Kalavri <vasilikikala...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi Fabian, > > > > I am using the dblp co-authorship dataset from SNAP: > > http://snap.stanford.edu/data/com-DBLP.html > > I also pushed my slightly modified version of ConnectedComponents, here: > > https://github.com/vasia/flink/tree/cc-test. It basically generates the > > vertex dataset from the edges, so that you don't need to create it > > separately. > > The annotation that creates the error is in line #172. > > > > Thanks a lot :)) > > > > -Vasia. > > > > > > On 3 April 2015 at 13:09, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > That looks pretty much like a bug. > > > > > > As you said, fwd fields annotations are optional and may improve the > > > performance of a program, but never change its semantics (if set > > > correctly). > > > > > > I'll have a look at it later. > > > Would be great if you could provide some data to reproduce the bug. > > > On Apr 3, 2015 12:48 PM, "Vasiliki Kalavri" <vasilikikala...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello to my squirrels, > > > > > > > > I've been getting a NullPointerException for a DeltaIteration program > > I'm > > > > trying to implement and I could really use your help :-) > > > > It seems that some of the input Tuples of the Join operator that I'm > > > using > > > > to create the next workset / solution set delta are null. > > > > It also seems that adding ForwardedFields annotations solves the > issue. > > > > > > > > I managed to reproduce the behavior using the ConnectedComponents > > > example, > > > > by removing the "@ForwardedFieldsFirst("*")" annotation from > > > > the ComponentIdFilter join. > > > > The exception message is the following: > > > > > > > > Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.flink.examples.java.graph.ConnectedComponents$ComponentIdFilter.join(ConnectedComponents.java:186) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.flink.examples.java.graph.ConnectedComponents$ComponentIdFilter.join(ConnectedComponents.java:1) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.flink.runtime.operators.JoinWithSolutionSetSecondDriver.run(JoinWithSolutionSetSecondDriver.java:198) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.flink.runtime.operators.RegularPactTask.run(RegularPactTask.java:496) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.flink.runtime.iterative.task.AbstractIterativePactTask.run(AbstractIterativePactTask.java:139) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.flink.runtime.iterative.task.IterationIntermediatePactTask.run(IterationIntermediatePactTask.java:92) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.flink.runtime.operators.RegularPactTask.invoke(RegularPactTask.java:362) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.flink.runtime.execution.RuntimeEnvironment.run(RuntimeEnvironment.java:217) > > > > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745) > > > > > > > > I get this error locally with any sufficiently big dataset (~10000 > > > nodes). > > > > When the annotation is in place, it works without problem. > > > > I also generated the optimizer plans for the two cases: > > > > - with annotation (working): > > > > https://gist.github.com/vasia/4f4dc6b0cc6c72b5b64b > > > > - without annotation (failing): > > > > https://gist.github.com/vasia/086faa45b980bf7f4c09 > > > > > > > > After visualizing the plans, the main difference I see is that in the > > > > working case, the next workset node and the solution set delta nodes > > are > > > > merged, while in the failing case they are separate. > > > > > > > > Shouldn't this work with and without annotation (but be more > efficient > > > with > > > > the annotation in place)? Or am I missing something here? > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any help :)) > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > - Vasia. > > > > > > > > > >
