flink-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (FLINK-2808) Rework / Extend the StatehandleProvider
Date Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:16:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2808?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14948347#comment-14948347
] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-2808:
---------------------------------------

Github user gyfora commented on the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1239#issuecomment-146467354
  
    So my argument is that the overhead of implementing the Checkpointed interface for simple
counters , offsets and the like is simply too much (and annoying).
    
    We can also introduce some annotations that the user can use to tag the state with. Then
the only thing we need to make sure is so that these support some custom checkpointing logic.
(like the state checkpointer interface)
    
    Another thing we should consider is that the Checkpointed interface will never allow any
lazy state access logic.


> Rework / Extend the StatehandleProvider
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-2808
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2808
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Streaming
>    Affects Versions: 0.10
>            Reporter: Stephan Ewen
>            Assignee: Stephan Ewen
>             Fix For: 0.10
>
>
> I would like to make some changes (mostly additions) to the {{StateHandleProvider}}.
Ideally for the upcoming release, as it is somewhat part of the public API.
> The rational behind this is to handle in a nice and extensible way the creation of key/value
state backed by various implementations (FS, distributed KV store, local KV store with FS
backup, ...) and various checkpointing ways (full dump, append, incremental keys, ...)
> The changes would concretely be:
> 1.  There should be a default {{StateHandleProvider}} set on the execution environment.
Functions can later specify the {{StateHandleProvider}} when grabbing the {{StreamOperatorState}}
from the runtime context (plus optionally a {{Checkpointer}})
> 2.  The {{StreamOperatorState}} is created from the {{StateHandleProvider}}. That way,
a KeyValueStore state backend can create a {{StreamOperatorState}} that directly updates data
in the KV store on every access, if that is desired (and filter accesses by timestamps to
only show committed data)
> 3.  The StateHandleProvider should have methods to get an output stream that writes to
the state checkpoint directly (and returns a StateHandle upon closing). That way we can convert
and dump large state into the checkpoint without crating a full copy in memory before.
> Lastly, I would like to change some names
>   - {{StateHandleProvider}} to either {{StateBackend}}, {{StateStore}}, or {{StateProvider}}
(simpler name).
>   - {{StreamOperatorState}} to either {{State}} or {{KVState}}.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message