I like John's idea as well: for this KIP specifically as we do not expect any other consumers to read the repartition topics externally, we can slightly prefix the header to be safe, while keeping the additional cost (note the header field is per-record, so any additional byte is per-record as well) low.
Guozhang On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Adam Bellemare <adam.bellem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John > > That is an excellent idea. The header usage I propose would be limited > entirely to internal topics, and this could very well be the solution to > potential conflicts. If we do not officially reserve a prefix "__" then I > think this would be the safest idea, as it would entirely avoid any > accidents (perhaps if a company is using its own "__" prefix for other > reasons). > > Thanks > > Adam > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:24 PM, John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Just a quick thought regarding headers: > > > I think there is no absolute-safe ways to avoid conflicts, but we can > > still > > > consider using some name patterns to reduce the likelihood as much as > > > possible.. e.g. consider sth. like the internal topics naming: e.g. > > > "__internal_[name]"? > > > > I think there is a safe way to avoid conflicts, since these headers are > > only needed in internal topics (I think): > > For internal and changelog topics, we can namespace all headers: > > * user-defined headers are namespaced as "external." + headerKey > > * internal headers are namespaced as "internal." + headerKey > > > > This is a lot of characters, so we could use a sigil instead (e.g., "_" > for > > internal, "~" for external) > > > > We simply apply the namespacing when we read user headers from external > > topics into the topology and then de-namespace them before we emit them > to > > an external topic (via "to" or "through"). > > Now, it is not possible to collide with user-defined headers. > > > > That said, I'd also be fine with just reserving "__" as a header prefix > and > > not worrying about collisions. > > > > Thanks for the KIP, > > -John > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:48 AM Jan Filipiak <jan.filip...@trivago.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Still havent completly grabbed it. > > > sorry will read more > > > > > > On 17.08.2018 21:23, Jan Filipiak wrote: > > > > Cool stuff. > > > > > > > > I made some random remarks. Did not touch the core of the algorithm > > yet. > > > > > > > > Will do Monday 100% > > > > > > > > I don't see Interactive Queries :) like that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 17.08.2018 20:28, Adam Bellemare wrote: > > > >> I have submitted a PR with my code against trunk: > > > >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5527 > > > >> > > > >> Do I continue on this thread or do we begin a new one for > discussion? > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Jan Filipiak < > > jan.filip...@trivago.com > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> even before message headers, the option for me always existed to > > > >>> just wrap > > > >>> the messages into my own custom envelop. > > > >>> So I of course thought this through. One sentence in your last > email > > > >>> triggered all the thought process I put in the back then > > > >>> again to design it in the, what i think is the "kafka-way". It > ended > > up > > > >>> ranting a little about what happened in the past. > > > >>> > > > >>> I see plenty of colleagues of mine falling into traps in the API, > > > >>> that I > > > >>> did warn about in the 1.0 DSL rewrite. I have the same > > > >>> feeling again. So I hope it gives you some insights into my though > > > >>> process. I am aware that since i never ported 213 to higher > > > >>> streams version, I don't really have a steak here and initially I > > > >>> didn't > > > >>> feel like actually sending it. But maybe you can pull > > > >>> something good from it. > > > >>> > > > >>> Best jan > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 15.08.2018 04:44, Adam Bellemare wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> @Jan > > > >>>> Thanks Jan. I take it you mean "key-widening" somehow includes > > > >>>> information > > > >>>> about which record is processed first? I understand about a > > > >>>> CombinedKey > > > >>>> with both the Foreign and Primary key, but I don't see how you > track > > > >>>> ordering metadata in there unless you actually included a metadata > > > >>>> field > > > >>>> in > > > >>>> the key type as well. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> @Guozhang > > > >>>> As Jan mentioned earlier, is Record Headers mean to strictly be > > > >>>> used in > > > >>>> just the user-space? It seems that it is possible that a collision > > > >>>> on the > > > >>>> (key,value) tuple I wish to add to it could occur. For instance, > if > > I > > > >>>> wanted to add a ("foreignKeyOffset",10) to the Headers but the > user > > > >>>> already > > > >>>> specified their own header with the same key name, then it appears > > > >>>> there > > > >>>> would be a collision. (This is one of the issues I brought up in > > > >>>> the KIP). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -------------------------------- > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I will be posting a prototype PR against trunk within the next day > > > >>>> or two. > > > >>>> One thing I need to point out is that my design very strictly > wraps > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> entire foreignKeyJoin process entirely within the DSL function. > > > >>>> There is > > > >>>> no > > > >>>> exposure of CombinedKeys or widened keys, nothing to resolve with > > > >>>> regards > > > >>>> to out-of-order processing and no need for the DSL user to even > know > > > >>>> what's > > > >>>> going on inside of the function. The code simply returns the > > > >>>> results of > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> join, keyed by the original key. Currently my API mirrors > > > >>>> identically the > > > >>>> format of the data returned by the regular join function, and I > > > >>>> believe > > > >>>> that this is very useful to many users of the DSL. It is my > > > >>>> understanding > > > >>>> that one of the main design goals of the DSL is to provide higher > > > >>>> level > > > >>>> functionality without requiring the users to know exactly what's > > > >>>> going on > > > >>>> under the hood. With this in mind, I thought it best to solve > > > >>>> ordering and > > > >>>> partitioning problems within the function and eliminate the > > > >>>> requirement > > > >>>> for > > > >>>> users to do additional work after the fact to resolve the results > > > >>>> of their > > > >>>> join. Basically, I am assuming that most users of the DSL just > > > >>>> "want it to > > > >>>> work" and want it to be easy. I did this operating under the > > > >>>> assumption > > > >>>> that if a user truly wants to optimize their own workflow down to > > the > > > >>>> finest details then they will break from strictly using the DSL > and > > > >>>> move > > > >>>> down to the processors API. > > > >>>> > > > >>> I think. The abstraction is not powerful enough > > > >>> to not have kafka specifics leak up The leak I currently think this > > > >>> has is > > > >>> that you can not reliable prevent the delete coming out first, > > > >>> before you emit the correct new record. As it is an abstraction > > > >>> entirely > > > >>> around kafka. > > > >>> I can only recommend to not to. Honesty and simplicity should > always > > be > > > >>> first prio > > > >>> trying to hide this just makes it more complex, less understandable > > and > > > >>> will lead to mistakes > > > >>> in usage. > > > >>> > > > >>> Exactly why I am also in big disfavour of GraphNodes and later > > > >>> optimization stages. > > > >>> Can someone give me an example of an optimisation that really can't > > be > > > >>> handled by the user > > > >>> constructing his topology differently? > > > >>> Having reusable Processor API components accessible by the DSL and > > > >>> composable as > > > >>> one likes is exactly where DSL should max out and KSQL should do > the > > > >>> next > > > >>> step. > > > >>> I find it very unprofessional from a software engineering approach > > > >>> to run > > > >>> software where > > > >>> you can not at least senseful reason about the inner workings of > the > > > >>> libraries used. > > > >>> Gives this people have to read and understand in anyway, why try to > > > >>> hide > > > >>> it? > > > >>> > > > >>> It really miss the beauty of 0.10 version DSL. > > > >>> Apparently not a thing I can influence but just warn about. > > > >>> > > > >>> @gouzhang > > > >>> you can't imagine how many extra IQ-Statestores I constantly prune > > from > > > >>> stream app's > > > >>> because people just keep passing Materialized's into all the > > > >>> operations. > > > >>> :D :'-( > > > >>> I regret that I couldn't convince you guys back then. Plus this > whole > > > >>> entire topology as a floating > > > >>> interface chain, never seen it anywhere :-/ :'( > > > >>> > > > >>> I don't know. I guess this is just me regretting to only have > > 24h/day. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> I updated the KIP today with some points worth talking about, > should > > > >>> anyone > > > >>>> be so inclined to check it out. Currently we are running this code > > in > > > >>>> production to handle relational joins from our Kafka Connect > > > >>>> topics, as > > > >>>> per > > > >>>> the original motivation of the KIP. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I believe the foreignKeyJoin should be responsible for. In my > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Guozhang Wang<wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Hello Adam, > > > >>>>> As for your question regarding GraphNodes, it is for extending > > > >>>>> Streams > > > >>>>> optimization framework. You can find more details on > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6761. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The main idea is that instead of directly building up the > "physical > > > >>>>> topology" (represented as Topology in the public package, and > > > >>>>> internally > > > >>>>> built as the ProcessorTopology class) while users are specifying > > the > > > >>>>> transformation operators, we first keep it as a "logical > topology" > > > >>>>> (represented as GraphNode inside InternalStreamsBuilder). And > then > > > >>>>> only > > > >>>>> execute the optimization and the construction of the "physical" > > > >>>>> Topology > > > >>>>> when StreamsBuilder.build() is called. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Back to your question, I think it makes more sense to add a new > > > >>>>> type of > > > >>>>> StreamsGraphNode (maybe you can consider inheriting from the > > > >>>>> BaseJoinProcessorNode). Note that although in the Topology we > will > > > >>>>> have > > > >>>>> multiple connected ProcessorNodes to represent a (foreign-key) > > > >>>>> join, we > > > >>>>> still want to keep it as a single StreamsGraphNode, or just a > > > >>>>> couple of > > > >>>>> them in the logical representation so that in the future we can > > > >>>>> construct > > > >>>>> the physical topology differently (e.g. having another way than > the > > > >>>>> current > > > >>>>> distributed hash-join). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Back to your questions to KIP-213, I think Jan has summarized it > > > >>>>> pretty-well. Note that back then we do not have headers support > so > > we > > > >>>>> have > > > >>>>> to do such "key-widening" approach to ensure ordering. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Guozhang > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Jan > > > >>>>> Filipiak<jan.filip...@trivago.com> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Hi Adam, > > > >>>>>> I love how you are on to this already! I resolve this by > > > >>>>>> "key-widening" > > > >>>>>> I > > > >>>>>> treat the result of FKA,and FKB differently. > > > >>>>>> As you can see the output of my join has a Combined Key and > > > >>>>>> therefore I > > > >>>>>> can resolve the "race condition" in a group by > > > >>>>>> if I so desire. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I think this reflects more what happens under the hood and makes > > > >>>>>> it more > > > >>>>>> clear to the user what is going on. The Idea > > > >>>>>> of hiding this behind metadata and handle it in the DSL is from > > > >>>>>> my POV > > > >>>>>> unideal. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> To write into your example: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> key + A, null) > > > >>>>>> (key +B, <joined On FK =B>) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> is what my output would look like. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hope that makes sense :D > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Best Jan > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On 13.08.2018 18:16, Adam Bellemare wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi Jan > > > >>>>>>> If you do not use headers or other metadata, how do you ensure > > that > > > >>>>>>> changes > > > >>>>>>> to the foreign-key value are not resolved out-of-order? > > > >>>>>>> ie: If an event has FK = A, but you change it to FK = B, you > > > >>>>>>> need to > > > >>>>>>> propagate both a delete (FK=A -> null) and an addition (FK=B). > > > >>>>>>> In my > > > >>>>>>> solution, without maintaining any metadata, it is possible for > > the > > > >>>>>>> final > > > >>>>>>> output to be in either order - the correctly updated joined > > > >>>>>>> value, or > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>>>> null for the delete. > > > >>>>>>> (key, null) > > > >>>>>>> (key, <joined On FK =B>) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> or > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> (key, <joined On FK =B>) > > > >>>>>>> (key, null) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I looked back through your code and through the discussion > > > >>>>>>> threads, and > > > >>>>>>> didn't see any information on how you resolved this. I have a > > > >>>>>>> version > > > >>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>> my > > > >>>>>>> code working for 2.0, I am just adding more integration tests > > > >>>>>>> and will > > > >>>>>>> update the KIP accordingly. Any insight you could provide on > > > >>>>>>> resolving > > > >>>>>>> out-of-order semantics without metadata would be helpful. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks > > > >>>>>>> Adam > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Jan Filipiak < > > > >>>>>>> jan.filip...@trivago.com > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Hi, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Happy to see that you want to make an effort here. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Regarding the ProcessSuppliers I couldn't find a way to not > > > >>>>>>>> rewrite > > > >>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> joiners + the merger. > > > >>>>>>>> The re-partitioners can be reused in theory. I don't know if > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> repartition > > > >>>>>> is optimized in 2.0 now. > > > >>>>>>>> I made this > > > >>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-241+ > > > >>>>>>>> KTable+repartition+with+compacted+Topics > > > >>>>>>>> back then and we are running KIP-213 with KIP-241 in > > combination. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> For us it is vital as it minimized the size we had in our > > > >>>>>>>> repartition > > > >>>>>>>> topics plus it removed the factor of 2 in events on every > > message. > > > >>>>>>>> I know about this new "delete once consumer has read it". I > > > >>>>>>>> don't > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> think > > > >>>>>> 241 is vital for all usecases, for ours it is. I wanted > > > >>>>>>>> to use 213 to sneak in the foundations for 241 aswell. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I don't quite understand what a PropagationWrapper is, but I > am > > > >>>>>>>> certain > > > >>>>>>>> that you do not need RecordHeaders > > > >>>>>>>> for 213 and I would try to leave them out. They either belong > > > >>>>>>>> to the > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> DSL > > > >>>>>> or to the user, having a mixed use is > > > >>>>>>>> to be avoided. We run the join with 0.8 logformat and I don't > > > >>>>>>>> think > > > >>>>>>>> one > > > >>>>>>>> needs more. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> This KIP will be very valuable for the streams project! I > > couldn't > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> never > > > >>>>>> convince myself to invest into the 1.0+ DSL > > > >>>>>>>> as I used almost all my energy to fight against it. Maybe this > > can > > > >>>>>>>> also > > > >>>>>>>> help me see the good sides a little bit more. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> If there is anything unclear with all the text that has been > > > >>>>>>>> written, > > > >>>>>>>> feel > > > >>>>>>>> free to just directly cc me so I don't miss it on > > > >>>>>>>> the mailing list. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Best Jan > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On 08.08.2018 15:26, Adam Bellemare wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> More followup, and +dev as Guozhang replied to me directly > > > >>>>>>>> previously. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I am currently porting the code over to trunk. One of the > major > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> changes > > > >>>>>> since 1.0 is the usage of GraphNodes. I have a question about > > this: > > > >>>>>>>>> For a foreignKey joiner, should it have its own dedicated > node > > > >>>>>>>>> type? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Or > > > >>>>>> would it be advisable to construct it from existing GraphNode > > > >>>>>>>>> components? > > > >>>>>>>>> For instance, I believe I could construct it from several > > > >>>>>>>>> OptimizableRepartitionNode, some SinkNode, some SourceNode, > and > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> several > > > >>>>>> StatefulProcessorNode. That being said, there is some underlying > > > >>>>>>>>> complexity > > > >>>>>>>>> to each approach. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I will be switching the KIP-213 to use the RecordHeaders in > > Kafka > > > >>>>>>>>> Streams > > > >>>>>>>>> instead of the PropagationWrapper, but conceptually it should > > > >>>>>>>>> be the > > > >>>>>>>>> same. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Again, any feedback is welcomed... > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Adam Bellemare < > > > >>>>>>>>> adam.bellem...@gmail.com > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang et al > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I was just reading the 2.0 release notes and noticed a > section > > on > > > >>>>>>>>>> Record > > > >>>>>>>>>> Headers. > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > >>>>>>>>>> 244%3A+Add+Record+Header+support+to+Kafka+Streams+ > > Processor+API > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am not yet sure if the contents of a RecordHeader is > > > >>>>>>>>>> propagated > > > >>>>>>>>>> all > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>> way through the Sinks and Sources, but if it is, and if it > > > >>>>>>>>>> remains > > > >>>>>>>>>> attached > > > >>>>>>>>>> to the record (including null records) I may be able to > ditch > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>> propagationWrapper for an implementation using RecordHeader. > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am > > > >>>>>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>>>> yet > > > >>>>>>>>>> sure if this is doable, so if anyone understands > RecordHeader > > > >>>>>>>>>> impl > > > >>>>>>>>>> better > > > >>>>>>>>>> than I, I would be happy to hear from you. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, let me know of any questions. I believe > this > > > >>>>>>>>>> PR has > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>> lot > > > >>>>>>>>>> of potential to solve problems for other people, as I have > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> encountered > > > >>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>> number of other companies in the wild all home-brewing their > > own > > > >>>>>>>>>> solutions > > > >>>>>>>>>> to come up with a method of handling relational data in > > streams. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Adam > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:45 AM, Guozhang > > > >>>>>>>>>> Wang<wangg...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hello Adam, > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for rebooting the discussion of this KIP ! Let me > > > >>>>>>>>>> finish my > > > >>>>>>>>>>> pass > > > >>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki and get back to you soon. Sorry for the > delays.. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Adam Bellemare < > > > >>>>>>>>>>> adam.bellem...@gmail.com > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me kick this off with a few starting points that I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> would like > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>> generate some discussion on. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) It seems to me that I will need to repartition the data > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> twice - > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> once > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the foreign key, and once back to the primary key. Is > there > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anything > > > >>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> am > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> missing here? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) I believe I will also need to materialize 3 state > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> stores: the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> prefixScan > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> SS, the highwater mark SS (for out-of-order resolution) > and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> final > > > >>>>>> state > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> store, due to the workflow I have laid out. I have not > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> thought of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> better > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> way yet, but would appreciate any input on this matter. I > > have > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> gone > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> back > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> through the mailing list for the previous discussions on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this KIP, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> did not see anything relating to resolving out-of-order > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> compute. I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> see a way around the current three-SS structure that I > have. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Caching is disabled on the prefixScan SS, as I do not > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> know how > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>> resolve the iterator obtained from rocksDB with that of the > cache. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In > > > >>>>>> addition, I must ensure everything is flushed before scanning. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Since > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> materialized prefixScan SS is under "control" of the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> function, I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anticipate this to be a problem. Performance throughput > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> will need > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tested, but as Jan observed in his initial overview of > this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> generally a surge of output events which affect > performance > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> moreso > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> than > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> flush or prefixScan itself. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts on any of these are greatly appreciated, since > > these > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> elements > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> really the cornerstone of the whole design. I can put up > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the code > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> written against 1.0.2 if we so desire, but first I was > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> hoping to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> just > > > >>>>>> tackle some of the fundamental design proposals. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Adam > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Adam Bellemare < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> adam.bellem...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the new discussion thread for KIP-213. I picked > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> back up on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> KIP > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as this is something that we too at Flipp are now running > in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> production. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jan started this last year, and I know that Trivago is > also > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> using > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> something > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> similar in production, at least in terms of APIs and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> functionality. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 213+Support+non-key+joining+in+KTable > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have an implementation of the code for Kafka 1.0.2 > > (our > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> local > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> production version) but I won't post it yet as I would > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> focus > > > >>>>>> on the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> workflow and design first. That being said, I also need to > > add > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> clearer > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> integration tests (I did a lot of testing using a > non-Kafka > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Streams > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> framework) and clean up the code a bit more before > putting > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> PR > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> against trunk (I can do so later this week likely). > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please take a look, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Bellemare > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>> -- Guozhang > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
