Re: [DISCUSS] Missing TreeMapState abstraction for maintaining ordered state

2025-04-21 Thread Zakelly Lan
apache.org/confluence/x/Xo_FD > > Thanks gain, > > Charles > > From: Zakelly Lan > Date: Monday, April 14, 2025 at 5:55 AM > To: dev@flink.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Missing TreeMapState abstraction for maintaining > ordered state > > Hi Charles, > > The

Re: [DISCUSS] Missing TreeMapState abstraction for maintaining ordered state

2025-04-18 Thread Charles COLELLA
M To: dev@flink.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Missing TreeMapState abstraction for maintaining ordered state Hi Charles, There is a FLIP-220[1] and discussions[2] about introducing a sorted map state in binary order. But it seems like there is no further progress and conclusion. It would be nice if any

Re: [DISCUSS] Missing TreeMapState abstraction for maintaining ordered state

2025-04-14 Thread Gabor Somogyi
Hi All, I've read through the FLIP and partially the discussion which is quite exhausting. The intention looks interesting, the idea is +1. If the FLIP goes forward then I've some questions which are touching the fundamentals. Without super deep consideration I've the feeling that we can realisti

Re: [DISCUSS] Missing TreeMapState abstraction for maintaining ordered state

2025-04-13 Thread Zakelly Lan
Hi Charles, There is a FLIP-220[1] and discussions[2] about introducing a sorted map state in binary order. But it seems like there is no further progress and conclusion. It would be nice if anyone could drive this. I would +1 for introducing this. As the RocksDB stores key-value in binary order,