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-9031) DataSet Job result changes when adding rebalance after union
Date Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:43:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9031?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16409223#comment-16409223

ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-9031:

Github user fhueske commented on a diff in the pull request:

    --- Diff: flink-optimizer/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/optimizer/testfunctions/IdentityFilter.java
    @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
    + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
    + * or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
    + * distributed with this work for additional information
    + * regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
    + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
    + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
    + * with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
    + *
    + *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
    + *
    + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
    + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
    + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
    + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
    + * limitations under the License.
    + */
    +package org.apache.flink.optimizer.testfunctions;
    +import org.apache.flink.api.common.functions.FilterFunction;
    + * FilterFunction for optimizer tests.
    + */
    +public class IdentityFilter<T> implements FilterFunction<T> {
    --- End diff --
    Good point. 
    Didn't think about that as the other tests follow that pattern.
    Will remove the class.

> DataSet Job result changes when adding rebalance after union
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: FLINK-9031
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9031
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: DataSet API, Local Runtime, Optimizer
>    Affects Versions: 1.3.1
>            Reporter: Fabian Hueske
>            Priority: Critical
>         Attachments: Person.java, RunAll.java, newplan.txt, oldplan.txt
> A user [reported this issue on the user mailing list|https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/075f1a487b044079b5d61f199439cb77dd4174bd425bcb3327ed7dfc@%3Cuser.flink.apache.org%3E].
> {quote}I am using Flink 1.3.1 and I have found a strange behavior on running the following
>  # Read data from file and store into DataSet<POJO>
>  # Split dataset in two, by checking if "field1" of POJOs is empty or not, so that the
first dataset contains only elements with non empty "field1", and the second dataset will
contain the other elements.
>  # Each dataset is then grouped by, one by "field1" and other by another field, and subsequently
>  # The 2 datasets are merged together by union.
>  # The final dataset is written as json.
> What I was expected, from output, was to find only one element with a specific value
of "field1" because:
>  # Reducing the first dataset grouped by "field1" should generate only one element with
a specific value of "field1".
>  # The second dataset should contain only elements with empty "field1".
>  # Making an union of them should not duplicate any record.
> This does not happen. When i read the generated jsons i see some duplicate (non empty)
values of "field1".
>  Strangely this does not happen when the union between the two datasets is not computed.
In this case the first dataset produces elements only with distinct values of "field1", while
second dataset produces only records with empty field "value1".
> {quote}
> The user has not enable object reuse.
> Later he reports that the problem disappears when he injects a rebalance() after a union
resolves the problem. I had a look at the execution plans for both cases (attached to this
issue) but could not identify a problem.
> Hence I assume, this might be an issue with the runtime code but we need to look deeper
into this. The user also provided an example program consisting of two classes which are attached
to the issue as well.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message