If you are using 1.11 new changelog format, I think it will retract old
value from old partition correctly.
If not, (I assume you are using append only changelog) I think it won't
retract old value.
lec ssmi 于2020年7月1日周三 下午2:39写道：
> The old value is already counted in a partition, and when the a
The old value is already counted in a partition, and when the above update
occurs, will the count value of the old partition be subtracted by 1, and
then added to the new partition?
Benchao Li 于2020年7月1日周三 下午1:11写道：
> Hi lec ssmi,
>
> > If the type value of a record is updated in the database
Hi lec ssmi,
> If the type value of a record is updated in the database, the values
before and after the update will be divided into different partitions and
handed over to different operators for calculation.
I think your understanding is correct.
> Can Retraction happen correctly?
I didn't g
oh, sorry, if source operator can retract old value, I think it can.
-原始邮件-
发件人:"lec ssmi"
发送时间:2020-07-01 10:48:38 (星期三)
收件人: "刘大龙" , flink-user
抄送:
主题: Re: the group key is retracted
Logically, when retracting , the old value can be sent to the original
partit
I think the old value will not retract, because the type value update, it
> will be calculate in new value, the old value will not be updated
>
>
> -原始邮件-
> *发件人:*"lec ssmi"
> *发送时间:*2020-07-01 09:53:39 (星期三)
> *收件人:* flink-user
> *抄送:*
> *主题:* the g
Hi:
When we use sql for aggregation operation, for example, the following sql
>select count( distinct name) cnt, type from table group by type
Source data can be regarded as bin log data.
If the type value of a record is updated in the database, the values
before and after the
