Re: Unexpected behaviour on windowing aggregations

2020-04-19 Thread Liam Clarke-Hutchinson
Yep, it sure was, now that I've removed the PEBKAC, numbers match up perfectly :) (A somewhat sheepish) thank you, Liam On Mon, 20 Apr. 2020, 2:51 pm John Roesler, wrote: > Hey Liam, > > Hah! Tell me about it... > > Well, let’s hope that was it. > Thanks, > John > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 18

Re: Unexpected behaviour on windowing aggregations

2020-04-19 Thread John Roesler
Hey Liam, Hah! Tell me about it... Well, let’s hope that was it. Thanks, John On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 18:43, Liam Clarke wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for the reply - yep, that was a dumb copy and paste error, which is > what I get for coding while surrounded by kids. >_< I'm deploying a fixed

Re: Unexpected behaviour on windowing aggregations

2020-04-19 Thread Liam Clarke
Hi John, Thanks for the reply - yep, that was a dumb copy and paste error, which is what I get for coding while surrounded by kids. >_< I'm deploying a fixed version of it as we speak. Thanks for the reply though :) Kind regards, Liam Clarke On Mon, 20 Apr. 2020, 2:08 am John Roesler, wrote:

Re: Unexpected behaviour on windowing aggregations

2020-04-19 Thread John Roesler
Hi Liam, I took a quick look. On the output side, it looks like you’re adding the count to the prior count. Should that just set the outbound vale to the new count? Maybe I misunderstood the situation. What I mean is, suppose you get two events for the same window: Inbound map := 0+1 = 1 Coun