You could still handle late data. Just keep state around longer ( within a predefined lateness interval). Say your time window is a tumbling window of 5 mins and your events for a key are allowed to arrive 30 mins late, keep events around for 35 mins before evicting them from state.
It means you are doing your own state and window management. But Flink is doing the same thing under the covers for you with event time based windows and watermarks. With really large windows you want to do that(process functions with custom state management ) anyways because you need more visibility and control in the state management process as large state has impact on checkpoints and if you need to optimize how state is stored you need to manage it yourself. At least that’s been my experience. Thanks Sameer > On Sep 23, 2019, at 9:27 AM, bupt_ljy <bupt_...@163.com> wrote: > > Hi Congxian, > Thanks but by doing that, we will lose some features like output of the > late data. > > Original Message > Sender: Congxian Qiu<qcx978132...@gmail.com> > Recipient: Lasse Nedergaard<lassenederga...@gmail.com> > Cc: 廖嘉逸<bupt_...@163.com>; user@flink.apache.org<user@flink.apache.org>; > d...@flink.apache.org<d...@flink.apache.org> > Date: Monday, Sep 23, 2019 19:56 > Subject: Re: Per Key Grained Watermark Support > > Hi > There was a discussion about this issue[1], as the previous discussion said > at the moment this is not supported out of the box by Flink, I think you can > try keyed process function as Lasse said. > > [1] > http://apache-flink-user-mailing-list-archive.2336050.n4.nabble.com/Watermark-for-each-key-td27485.html#a27516 > Best, > Congxian > > > Lasse Nedergaard <lassenederga...@gmail.com> 于2019年9月23日周一 下午12:42写道： >> Hi Jiayi >> >> We have face the same challenge as we deal with IoT unit and they do not >> necessarily share the same timestamp. Watermark or. Key would be perfect >> match here. We tried to workaround with handle late events as special case >> with sideoutputs but isn’t the perfect solution. >> My conclusion is to skip watermark and create a keyed processed function and >> handle the time for each key my self. >> >> Med venlig hilsen / Best regards >> Lasse Nedergaard >> >> >>> Den 23. sep. 2019 kl. 06.16 skrev 廖嘉逸 <bupt_...@163.com>: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> Currently Watermark can only be supported on task’s level(or partition >>> level), which means that the data belonging to the faster key has to share >>> the same watermark with the data belonging to the slower key in the same >>> key group of a KeyedStream. This will lead to two problems: >>> >>> 1. Latency. For example, every key has its own window state but they >>> have to trigger it after the window’s end time is exceeded by the watermark >>> which is determined by the data belonging to the slowest key usually. (Same >>> in CepOperator and other operators which are using watermark to fire result) >>> 2. States Size. Because the faster key delayes its firing on result, it >>> has to store more redundant states which should be pruned earlier. >>> >>> However, since the watermark has been introduced for a long time and >>> not been designed to be more fine-grained in the first place, I find that >>> it’s very hard to solve this problem without a big change. I wonder if >>> there is anyone in community having some successful experience on this or >>> maybe there is a shortcut way? If not, I can try to draft a design if this >>> is needed in community. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Jiayi Liao >>> >>> >>>
