Thanks Fabian Boris Lublinsky FDP Architect boris.lublin...@lightbend.com https://www.lightbend.com/
> On Jan 13, 2018, at 11:06 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, that is correct. > You can treat keyed ValueState like a distributed hashmap and Flink routes > all state accesses to the entry for the key of the current record. > > 2018-01-13 17:07 GMT+01:00 Boris Lublinsky <boris.lublin...@lightbend.com > <mailto:boris.lublin...@lightbend.com>>: > Can you, please confirm that my understanding is correct? > I am looking at the documentation on low level joins > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.4/dev/stream/operators/process_function.html#low-level-joins > > <https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.4/dev/stream/operators/process_function.html#low-level-joins> > And the example there. > When we are doing KeyBy and then Process, Flink maintains an instance per key > and makes sure that that for a given key an instance for this key is used. > Correct? > It mean that the value state for a given key is maintained by Flink and in my > code I do not need to worry about a key value. > In my code I can use ValueState and assume that Flink will keep track of it > on per key fashion. > > Boris Lublinsky > FDP Architect > boris.lublin...@lightbend.com <mailto:boris.lublin...@lightbend.com> > https://www.lightbend.com/ <https://www.lightbend.com/> >
