With object reuse activated, Flink heavily reuses objects. Each call to the Iterator in the reduceGroup function gives back one of the same two objects, with has been filled with different contents.
Your list of all values will effectively only contain two different objects. Further more, the look-ahead, which determines that a new key starts, will also reuse one of these objects, which is why some elements in your list have their contents already overwritten with the look-ahead key. The contract for object reuse mode is the following: An object is only valid until you request a new value from the iterator. After that, the object's contents may have changed due to reuse. This effectively means accumulating objects in a list with object reuse mode requires you to manually copy them into the list. On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:30 PM, LINZ, Arnaud <al...@bouyguestelecom.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I was using primitive types, and EnableObjectReuse was turned on. My next > move was to turn it off, and it did solved the problem. > > It also increased execution time by 10%, but it’s hard to say if this > overhead is due to the copy or to the change of behavior of the reduceGroup > algorithm once it get the right data. > > > > Since I never modify my objects, why object reuse isn’t working ? > > > > Best regards, > > Arnaud > > > > > > *De :* Till Rohrmann [mailto:trohrm...@apache.org] > *Envoyé :* jeudi 22 octobre 2015 12:36 > *À :* user@flink.apache.org > *Objet :* Re: Multiple keys in reduceGroup ? > > > > If not, could you provide us with the program and test data to reproduce > the error? > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > > Hi, > but he’s comparing it to a primitive long, so shouldn’t the Long key be > unboxed and the comparison still be valid? > > My question is whether you enabled object-reuse-mode on the > ExecutionEnvironment? > > Cheers, > Aljoscha > > > On 22 Oct 2015, at 12:31, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > You are checking for equality / inequality with "!=" - can you check > with "equals()" ? > > > > The key objects will most certainly be different in each record (as they > are deserialized individually), but they should be equal. > > > > Stephan > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM, LINZ, Arnaud <al...@bouyguestelecom.fr> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > > > Trying to understand why my code was giving strange results, I’ve ended > up adding “useless” controls in my code and came with what seems to me a > bug. I group my dataset according to a key, but in the reduceGroup function > I am passed values with different keys. > > > > > > > > My code has the following pattern (mix of java & pseudo-code in []) : > > > > > > > > inputDataSet [of InputRecord] > > > > .joinWithTiny(referencesDataSet [of Reference]) > > > > .where([InputRecord SecondaryKeySelector]).equalTo([Reference > KeySelector]) > > > > > > .groupBy([PrimaryKeySelector : Tuple2<InputRecord, Reference> -> > value.f0.getPrimaryKey()]) > > > > .sortGroup([DateKeySelector], Order.ASCENDING) > > > > .reduceGroup(new ReduceFunction<InputRecord, OutputRecord>() { > > > > @Override > > > > public void reduce(Iterable< Tuple2<InputRecord, Reference>> > values, Collector<OutputRecord> out) throws Exception { > > > > // Issue : all values do not share the same key > > > > final List<Tuple2<InputRecord, Reference>> listValues = new > ArrayList<Tuple2<InputRecord, Reference>>(); > > > > for (final Tuple2<InputRecord, Reference>value : values) { > listValues.add(value); } > > > > > > > > final long primkey = listValues.get(0).f0.getPrimaryKey(); > > > > for (int i = 1; i < listValues.size(); i++) { > > > > if (listValues.get(i).f0.getPrimaryKey() != primkey) { > > > > throw new IllegalStateException(primkey + " != " + > listValues.get(i).f0.getPrimaryKey()); > > > > è This exception is fired ! > > > > } > > > > } > > > > } > > > > }) ; > > > > > > > > I use the current 0.10 snapshot. The issue appears in local cluster mode > unit tests as well as in yarn mode (however it’s ok when I test it with > very few elements). > > > > > > > > The sortGroup is not the cause of the problem, as I do get the same > error without it. > > > > > > > > Have I misunderstood the grouping concept or is it really an awful bug? > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Arnaud > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L'intégrité de ce message n'étant pas assurée sur internet, la société > expéditrice ne peut être tenue responsable de son contenu ni de ses pièces > jointes. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Si > vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire et > d'avertir l'expéditeur. > > > > The integrity of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The > company that sent this message cannot therefore be held liable for its > content nor attachments. Any unauthorized use or dissemination is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, then > please delete it and notify the sender. > > > > >
