Hi Andrea,

I wrote the post 2.5 years ago. Sorry, I don't think that I kept the code
somewhere, but the mechanics in Flink should still be the same.

Best, Fabian

Am Fr., 16. Nov. 2018, 20:06 hat Andrea Sella <m...@alkagin.xyz> geschrieben:

> Hi Andrey,
>
> My bad, I forgot to say that I am using Scala 2.11, that’s why I asked
> about the limitation, and Flink 1.5.5.
>
> If I recall correctly CaseClassSerilizer and CaseClassTypeInfo don’t rely
> on unapply and tupled functions, so I'd say that Flink doesn't have this
> kind of limitation with Scala 2.11. Correct?
>
> Thank you,
> Andrea
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 19:34, Andrey Zagrebin <and...@data-artisans.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> 22 limit comes from Scala [1], not Flink.
>> I am not sure about any repo for the post, but I also cc'ed Fabian, maybe
>> he will point to some if it exists.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andrey
>>
>> [1] https://underscore.io/blog/posts/2016/10/11/twenty-two.html
>>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2018, at 13:10, Andrea Sella <m...@alkagin.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> Hey squirrels,
>>
>> I've started to study more in-depth Flink Serialization and its "type
>> system".
>>
>> I have a generated case class using scalapb that has more than 30 fields;
>> I've seen that Flink still uses the CaseClassSerializer, the
>> TypeInformation is CaseClassTypeInfo, even if in the docs[1] is written
>> differently (22 fields limit). I'd have expected a GenericTypeInfo, but all
>> is well because the CaseClassSerializer is faster than Kryo. Did I
>> misunderstand the documentation or don't the limitation apply anymore?
>>
>> Another thing, I've read "Juggling with Bits and Bytes"[2] blog post an I
>> would like to replicate the experiment with some tailored changes to deep
>> dive even better in the topic. Is the source code in Github or somewhere
>> else?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.5/dev/types_serialization.html#flinks-typeinformation-class
>> [2]
>> https://flink.apache.org/news/2015/05/11/Juggling-with-Bits-and-Bytes.html
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Andrea
>>
>>
>>

Reply via email to