Hi Matthias,

Yes, I'm aware of Wall-clock time punctuation, but that is not the behavior
my customers want, so I can't use that unfortunately...

OK.  I'm going to try and write a utility "StreamTimeInspector" transformer
that will do as you suggest and give me the stats the I want.  If we find
this useful at my company I'll consider submitting it as a PR.

Is there any current precedent around transformers like this in
KafkaStreams?  Transformers you insert for interrogation only?

Dan

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:10 PM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
wrote:

> Dan,
>
> Kafka Streams supports two types of punctuation: event-time and
> wall-clock time punctuation. Wall-clock time punctuation will be called
> even if event-time does not progress and even if there is no new input
> data available for processing. Not sure if this is what you are looking
> for.
>
> Beside this, Processor API exposes record metadata information. Thus,
> you can plugin a custom `transform()` step to access and maintain the
> information/stats you are interested in (The provided `context` object
> from `init()` is your friend for this.) and maybe make it queryable via
> Interactive Queries?
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 4/2/18 11:26 AM, dan bress wrote:
> > I have an app that is consuming multiple topics, and punctuating on
> stream
> > time.  I know that punctuate is driven by the min time of all the
> > partitions of all the topics driving the transformer that I am
> punctuating
> > on.  When I deploy my app and punctuate is not called as I expect, what
> > tools do I have to understand where time is per
> > instance/thread/topic/partition?  Does Kafka Streams expose stats for
> this?
> >
> > I would like something like a stat of something like:
> >
> > Kafka Streams Instance / Kafka Stream Thread / Topic / Partition /
> > EventTime = 1522693495291
> >
> > Then I can look at which topic/partition is lagging to debug my problem.
> >
> > Does something like this exist?  Is this a reasonable feature request?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dan
> >
>
>

Reply via email to