Hi Alijoscha,

It is very helpful to me to understand the behavior on such scenario. Thank
you very much!!!

Best Regards,
Tony Wei

2017-08-28 20:00 GMT+08:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>:

> Hi Tony,
>
> I think your analyses are correct. Especially, yes, if you re-read the
> data the (ts=3) data should still be considered late if both consumers read
> with the same speed. If, however, (ts=3) is read before the other consumer
> reads (ts=8) then it should not be considered late, as you said.
>
> Best,
> Aljoscha
>
> > On 24. Aug 2017, at 15:49, Tony Wei <tony19920...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Recently, I studied about watermark from Flink documents and blogs.
> >
> > I have some question about this scenario below.
> >
> > Suppose there are five clients sending events with different time to the
> topic on Kafka.
> > Topic has two partitions and five events' timestamp are (ts=1), (ts=2),
> (ts=3), (ts=8), (ts=9).
> > The Flink streaming job uses the following setting:
> > 1. use AscendingTimestampExtractor
> > 2. client time as timestamp
> > 3. use tumbling window with 5 unit window size
> > 4. not allow late event
> >
> > If the client events out of order like this.
> >   Partition A [(ts=1), (ts=8)]
> >   Partition B [(ts=2), (ts=9)]  <= (ts=3) delay
> > Should the window function emit [(ts=1), (ts=2)], keep [(ts=8), (ts=9]
> in state and drop out (ts=3) ?
> >
> > If all events has come, and then replay the job from the beginning, the
> partition state would be
> >   Partition A [(ts=1), (ts=8)]
> >   Partition B [(ts=2), (ts=9), (ts=3)]
> > Suppose two consumers fetch events with same speed, should the result be
> the same as above?
> > If consumer B reads (ts=3) earlier than consumer A reads (ts=8), would
> (ts=3) be placed in the window before watermark becomes to 8 and then emit
> [(ts=1), (ts=2), (ts=3)] as result?
> >
> > I wonder if those questions are all correct. If not, is there any
> mechanisms about watermark and window in Flink that I missed.
> >
> > Thank for your help.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Tony Wei
> >
>
>

Reply via email to