Hey all, starting a vote in 24 hours. Unless there are more points to
discuss.
Thanks,
Alexey
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 8:28 AM Alexey Leonov-Vendrovskiy <
vendrov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Done. There was some accidental removal during editing.
>
> Thanks,
> Alexey
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 5:23 A
Done. There was some accidental removal during editing.
Thanks,
Alexey
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 5:23 AM Jim Hughes
wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> Looks reasonable. As a note, I think this sentence is missing some words:
>
> "Due to batch queries nature, we do not expect the jobs to run forever
> (days
Hi Alexey,
Looks reasonable. As a note, I think this sentence is missing some words:
"Due to batch queries nature, we do not expect the jobs to run forever
(days, months, years) – unlike from . "
Can you update it?
Cheers,
Jim
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 3:16 AM Alexey Leonov-Vendrovskiy <
vendr
Thanks Timo and Jim! Added a few sentences to the FLIP to cover your points.
-Alexey
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 11:23 PM Timo Walther wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> thanks for proposing this FLIP. It is a nice continuation of the vision
> we had for CompiledPlan when writing and implementing FLIP-190. The
Hi Alexey,
thanks for proposing this FLIP. It is a nice continuation of the vision
we had for CompiledPlan when writing and implementing FLIP-190. The
whole stack is prepared for serializing BatchExecNodes as well so it
shouldn't be too hard to make this a reality.
> I think the FLIP should
Hi Alexey,
Responses inline below:
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 7:18 PM Alexey Leonov-Vendrovskiy <
vendrov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Jim.
>
> > 1. For the testing, I'd call the tests "execution" tests rather than
> > "restore" tests. For streaming execution, restore tests have the
> compiled
>
Thanks, Alexey, for the proposal. I think this is a nice addition that
finally fixes the gap in the CompiledPlan. +1
Best,
Fabian
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:19 AM Alexey Leonov-Vendrovskiy <
vendrov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Jim.
>
>
>
> > 1. For the testing, I'd call the tests "execution" te
Thanks Jim.
> 1. For the testing, I'd call the tests "execution" tests rather than
> "restore" tests. For streaming execution, restore tests have the compiled
> plan and intermediate state; the tests verify that those can work together
> and continue processing.
Agree that we don't need to st
Hi Alexey,
After some thought, I have a question about deprecations:
3. Can we remove old versions of batch operators eventually? Or do we
need to keep them forever like we would for streaming operators?
Cheers,
Jim
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 11:29 AM Jim Hughes wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> Overall
Hi Alexey,
Overall, the FLIP looks good and makes sense to me.
1. For the testing, I'd call the tests "execution" tests rather than
"restore" tests. For streaming execution, restore tests have the compiled
plan and intermediate state; the tests verify that those can work together
and continue pr
Hey Paul,
Yes, no interchangeability. Just a wire-through for more uniformity.
Thanks,
Alexey
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 2:10 AM Paul Lam wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> Thanks a lot for bringing up the discussion. I’m big +1 for the FLIP.
>
> I suppose the goal doesn’t involve the interchangeability of j
Hi Alexey,
Thanks a lot for bringing up the discussion. I’m big +1 for the FLIP.
I suppose the goal doesn’t involve the interchangeability of json plans between
batch mode and streaming mode, right?
In other words, a json plan compiled in a batch program can’t be run in
streaming mode without a
Hi everyone,
PTAL at the proposed FLIP-456: CompiledPlan support for Batch Execution
Mode. It is pretty self-describing.
Any thoughts are welcome!
Thanks,
Alexey
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-456%3A+CompiledPlan+support+for+Batch+Execution+Mode
.
13 matches
Mail list logo
