Hi! In addition to setting the grace period to zero (or some small number), you should also consider the delays introduced by record caches upstream of the suppression. If you're closely watching the timing of records going into and coming out of the topology, this might also spoil your expectations. You could always disable the record cache to make the system more predictable (although this would hurt throughput in production).
Thanks, -John On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 3:01 PM Parthasarathy, Mohan <mpart...@hpe.com> wrote: > > We do explicitly set the grace period to zero. I am going to try the new > version > > -mohan > > > On 6/19/19, 12:50 PM, "Parthasarathy, Mohan" <mpart...@hpe.com> wrote: > > Thanks. We will give it a shot. > > On 6/19/19, 12:42 PM, "Bruno Cadonna" <br...@confluent.io> wrote: > > Hi Mohan, > > I realized that my previous statement was not clear. With a grace > period of 12 hour, suppress would wait for late events until stream > time has advanced 12 hours before a result would be emitted. > > Best, > Bruno > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:21 PM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > Hi Mohan, > > > > if you do not set a grace period, the grace period defaults to 12 > > hours. Hence, suppress would wait for an event that occurs 12 hour > > later before it outputs a result. Try to explicitly set the grace > > period to 0 and let us know if it worked. > > > > If it still does not work, upgrade to version 2.2.1 if it is > possible > > for you. We had a couple of bugs in suppress recently that are fixed > > in that version. > > > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:37 PM Parthasarathy, Mohan > <mpart...@hpe.com> wrote: > > > > > > No, I have not set any grace period. Is that mandatory ? Have you > seen problems with suppress and windows expiring ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Mohan > > > > > > On 6/19/19, 12:41 AM, "Bruno Cadonna" <br...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mohan, > > > > > > Did you set a grace period on the window? > > > > > > Best, > > > Bruno > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:04 AM Parthasarathy, Mohan > <mpart...@hpe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On further debugging, what we are seeing is that windows > are expiring rather randomly as new messages are being processed. . We tested > with new key for every new message. We waited for the window time before > replaying new messages. Sometimes a new message would come in and create > state. It takes several messages to make some of the old windows to be closed > (go past suppress to the next stage). We have also seen where one of them > never closed even but several other older ones expired. Then we explicitly > sent a message with the same old key and then it showed up. Also, for every > new message, only one of the previous window expires even though there are > several pending. > > > > > > > > If we don't use suppress, then there is never an issue. > With suppress, the behavior we are seeing is weird. We are using 2.1.0 > version in DSL mode. Any clues on what we could be missing ? Why isn't there > an order in the way windows are closed ? As event time progresses by the new > messages arriving, the older ones should expire. Is that right understanding > or not ? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Mohan > > > > > > > > On 6/17/19, 3:43 PM, "Parthasarathy, Mohan" > <mpart...@hpe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > We are using suppress in the application. We see some > state being created at some point in time. Now there is no new data for a day > or two. We send new data but the old window of data (where we see the state > being created) is not closing i.e not seeing it go through suppress and on to > the next stage. It is as though the state created earlier was purged. Is this > possible ? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Mohan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
