-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 324
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support streaming jobs in Marquez #2682
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If a job has
{A,B}
as initial inputs, the only{A}
shouldn't that be a new job version? Given that all inputs/outputs are expected when a job run has been started, we should create a job version anytime the inputs or outputs change and associated the run with the new job version.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Existing algorithm to compute version of the job relies on all the inputs & datasets for the particular run. We should not modify it, as this would cause new job version for all the existing jobs, but we could create a separate version to evaluate version of the streaming job if we wanted.
However, when looking into the approach, I found it useful. It's a cumulative approach, where new job version is created if a new input/output dataset is involved in processing. If some dataset was included in the past events, but is no longer present, the version does not get change.
The benefit of this assumption is that we don't require producer to emit all the datasets all the time. If you emit amount of bytes written into output dataset, without containing input dataset in the event, it doesn't mean there is new job version without the inputs.
Is it OK?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do feel if a stream is removed, you'll want to remove that edge from the current lineage graph. But, I also understand the limitations here, as you mentioned, with bytes written to an output dataset present with no input datasets specified; that said, and after thinking it through, this may be a noop and the logic you have is reasonable.
For example, let's say we have a streaming job
X
with inputs{A,B}
and outputsC
. The job runs and is marked asRUNNING
with the run ID74f117af-eb90-4ffd-98e1-c1bc215934df
. To change the inputs from{A,B}
to{B}
(or similarly for the outputs), the user will have to redeploy the job (with new code possibly) and therefore be associated with a new run ID. So, what I think you have is logically correct given how streaming jobs are deployed. For batch jobs, versioning is more straight forward as we version from run-to-run.