Hi Hequn,
Thanks a lot four your response! This helps me understand the mechanism
more clearly.
I have another question:
How do I use flink to accoplish time attenuation?
If a use join plus retention time solution, I can only get the
increment data. But some other data may need to be recomputed because the time
attenuation. Then how do I flush them?
Best,
Henry,
> 在 2018年8月22日，上午10:30，Hequn Cheng <chenghe...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Hi Hery,
>
> As for choise1:
> The state size of join depends on it's input table size, not the result
> table, so the state size of join of choise1 depends on how many article id,
> praise id and response_id.
> Also non-window join will merge same rows in it's state, i.e, <Row, RowCnt>,
> so the state size won't grows if you keep pouring same article id. I think
> the problem here is you need a distinct before join, so that a praise id
> won't join multi same article ids, and this will influence the correctness of
> the result.
> I think you need do aggregate before join to make sure the correctness of the
> result. Because there are duplicated article id after article join praise and
> this will influence the value of count(r.response_id).
> You can't use window or other bounded operators after non-window join. The
> time attribute fields can not be passed through because of semantic conflict.
> Hop window with large fixed duration and small hop interval should be
> avoided. Data will be redundant in various windows. For example, a hopping
> window of 15 minutes size and 5 minute hop interval assigns each row to 3
> different windows of 15 minute size.
> As for choice2:
> I think you need another filed(for example, HOP_START) when join the three
> tables. Only join records in same window.
> To solve your problem, I think we can do non-window group by first and then
> join three result tables. Furthermore, state retention time can be set to
> keep state from growing larger.
>
> Best, Hequn
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:07 PM 徐涛 <happydexu...@gmail.com
> <mailto:happydexu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Fabian,
> So maybe I can not join a table that generate from a window, because
> the table is getting larger and larger as the time goes, maybe the system
> will crash one day.
>
> I am working on a system that calculate the “score" of article, which
> is consist of the count of article praise, the count of article response, etc
> Because I can not use flink to save all the article, I decide to update
> the score of the article that created in 3 days.
>
> I have two choises,
> 1. join the article table and praise table, response table then window
> select a.article_id, count(p.praise_id) as pCount,
> count(r.response_id) as rCount
> from
> article a
> left join
> praise p on a.article_id = p.article_id
> left join
> response r on a.article_id = r.article_id
> group by hop(updated_time, interval '1' minute,interval '3'
> day) , article_id
> 2. window the article table, window the priase table, window the
> response table ,then join them together
> select aAggr.article_id, pAggr.pCount, rAggr.rCount
> (select article_id from article group by hop(updated_time,
> interval '1' minute,interval '3' day) , article_id) aAggr
> left join
> (select article_id,count(praise_id) as pCount from praise group
> by hop(updated_time, interval '1' minute,interval '3' day) , article_id)
> pAggr on aAggr.article_id=pAggr.article_id
> left join
> (select article_id,count(response_id) as rCount from response
> group by hop(updated_time, interval '1' minute,interval '3' day) ,
> article_id) rAggr on aAggr.article_id=rAggr.article_id
>
> Maybe I should choose 1, join then window, but not window then join.
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> I have some worries when choose 1,
> I do not know how Flink works internally, it seems that in the sql ,
> table article ,table praise, table response is growing as the time goes by,
> will it introduce performance issue?
>
> Best,
> Henry
>
>> 在 2018年8月21日，下午9:29，Hequn Cheng <chenghe...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:chenghe...@gmail.com>> 写道：
>>
>> Hi Henry,
>>
>> praiseAggr is an append table, so it contains "100,101,102,100,101,103,100".
>> 1. if you change your sql to s"SELECT article_id FROM praise GROUP BY
>> article_id", the answer is "101,102,103"
>> 2. if you change your sql to s"SELECT last_value(article_id) FROM praise",
>> the answer is "100"
>>
>> Best, Hequn
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:52 PM, 徐涛 <happydexu...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:happydexu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Fabian,
>> Thanks for your response. This question puzzles me for quite a long
>> time.
>> If the praiseAggr has the following value:
>> window-1 100,101,102
>> window-2 100,101,103
>> window-3 100
>>
>> the last time the article table joins praiseAggr, which of the
>> following value does praiseAggr table has?
>> 1— 100,101,102,100,101,103,100 collect all the element
>> of all the window
>> 2— 100 the element
>> of the latest window
>> 3— 101,102,103 the distinct value
>> of all the window
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Henry
>>
>>
>>> 在 2018年8月21日，下午8:02，Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:fhue...@gmail.com>> 写道：
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The semantics of a query do not depend on the way that it is used.
>>> praiseAggr is a table that grows by one row per second and article_id. If
>>> you use that table in a join, the join will fully materialize the table.
>>> This is a special case because the same row is added multiple times, so the
>>> state won't grow that quickly, but the performance will decrease because
>>> for each row from article will join with multiple (a growing number) of
>>> rows from praiseAggr.
>>>
>>> Best, Fabian
>>>
>>> 2018-08-21 12:19 GMT+02:00 徐涛 <happydexu...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:happydexu...@gmail.com>>:
>>> Hi All,
>>> var praiseAggr = tableEnv.sqlQuery(s"SELECT article_id FROM praise
>>> GROUP BY HOP(updated_time, INTERVAL '1' SECOND,INTERVAL '3' MINUTE) ,
>>> article_id" )
>>> tableEnv.registerTable("praiseAggr", praiseAggr)
>>> var finalTable = tableEnv.sqlQuery(s”SELECT 1 FROM article a join
>>> praiseAggr p on a.article_id=p.article_id" )
>>> tableEnv.registerTable("finalTable", finalTable)
>>> I know that praiseAggr, if written to sink, is append mode , so if a
>>> table joins praiseAggr, what the table “see”, is a table contains the
>>> latest value, or a table that grows larger and larger? If it is the later,
>>> will it introduce performance problem?
>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Henry
>>>
>>
>>
>
