Yes, the addendum lgtm as well. Thanks! On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:34 PM, John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Another thing that came up after I started working on an implementation is > that in addition to deprecating "retention" from the Windows interface, we > also need to deprecate "segmentInterval", for the same reasons. I simply > overlooked it previously. I've updated the KIP accordingly. > > Hopefully, this doesn't change anyone's vote. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:31 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Thanks Guozhang, > > > > Thanks for that catch. to clarify, currently, events are "late" only when > > they are older than the retention period. Currently, we detect this in > the > > processor and record it as a "skipped-record". We then do not attempt to > > store the event in the window store. If a user provided a pre-configured > > window store with a retention period smaller than the one they specify > via > > Windows#until, the segmented store will drop the update with no metric > and > > record a debug-level log. > > > > With KIP-328, with the introduction of "grace period" and moving > retention > > fully into the state store, we need to have metrics for both "late > events" > > (new records older than the grace period) and "expired window events" > (new > > records for windows that are no longer retained in the state store). I > > already proposed metrics for the late events, and I've just updated the > KIP > > with metrics for the expired window events. I also updated the KIP to > make > > it clear that neither late nor expired events will count as > > "skipped-records" any more. > > > > -John > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:22 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi John, > >> > >> Thanks for the updated KIP, +1 from me, and one minor suggestion: > >> > >> Following your suggestion of the differentiation of `skipped-records` > v.s. > >> `late-event-drop`, we should probably consider moving the scenarios > where > >> records got ignored due the window not being available any more in > >> windowed > >> aggregation operators from the `skipped-records` metrics recording to > the > >> `late-event-drop` metrics recording. > >> > >> > >> > >> Guozhang > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks for the KIP! > >> > > >> > +1 > >> > > >> > -Bill > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:42 PM Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > +1 > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:46 AM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hello devs, > >> > > > > >> > > > The discussion of KIP-328 has gone some time with no new comments, > >> so I > >> > > am > >> > > > calling for a vote! > >> > > > > >> > > > Here's the KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/sQU0BQ > >> > > > > >> > > > The basic idea is to provide: > >> > > > * more usable control over update rate (vs the current state store > >> > > caches) > >> > > > * the final-result-for-windowed-computations feature which > several > >> > people > >> > > > have requested > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > -John > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- Guozhang > >> > > > -- -- Guozhang
