I am using Kafka Streams 2.3.1 suppress() operator to limit the number of updates being sent to the underlying KTable.
The use case here is that in my processing logic, I want to make an HTTP call, however to limit the number of calls, I am windowing the stream and aggregating source topic messages that fall into the same time window to make a single API call.
Code looks roughly as follows
KTable<Windowed<String>, List<Event>> windowedEventKTable = inputKStream
.groupByKey()
.windowedBy(TimeWindows.of(Duration.ofSeconds(30)).grace(Duration.ofSeconds(5))
.aggregate(Aggregator::new, ((key, value, aggregate) -> aggregate.aggregate(value)), stateStore)
.suppress(Suppressed.untilTimeLimit(Duration.ofSeconds(5), maxRecords(500).emitEarlyWhenFull())
.mapValues((windowedKey, groupedTriggerAggregator) -> {//code here returning a list})
.toStream((k,v) -> k.key())
.flatMapValues((readOnlyKey, value) -> value);
The problem I am running into is that while the windows exceeding the record limit are emitted, the state is preserved. At some point the state for a single time window grows into multiple MB's, causing the supress store changelog message to exceed the topic's max.message.bytes limit. For our use case, as soon as window is emitted we actually don't care about leftover state and it would be safe to drop it.
As we are sharing the Kafka Cluster between multiple teams, the team running the cluster is hesitant to increase cluster level max.message.bytes property beyond 10 MB's that we require.
Do I have any options other than implementing my logic using transformValues? If not, are there any future Kafka Streams enhancements that would be able to handle this more out of the box?
For our use case, as soon as window is emitted we actually don't care about leftover state and it would be safe to drop it.
For this case, you can set the store retention time (default is 1 day) to the same value as the specified grace period, via aggregation() parameter Materialized.withRetentiontTime(...).
The problem I am running into is that while the windows exceeding the record limit are emitted, the state is preserved. At some point the state for a single time window grows into multiple MB's, causing the supress store changelog message to exceed the topic's max.message.bytes limit.
This is actually an interesting statement, and looking at your code, I just want to clarify something: As you limit by time and allow to emit early based on cache size, it seems that you have a lot of records that are out of order and update the state further even after an intermediate result was emitted. If you purge the state via retention time as describe above you need to consider the following:
Purging state won't affect any emits that are triggered base on cache size, because, the state will only be purges after the retention time passed.
0 Furthermore, purging state implies that all out of order records the appear after purging would not be processed at all, but would be dropped (because retention time implicitly marks input records with smaller timestamp as "late").
However, overall it seems that you don't really care about out of order data and event-time windows as it's ok for you to "arbitrarily" put records into a window as the only goal is to reduce the number of external API calls. Hence, it seems appropriate that you actually switch to processing time semantics by using WallclockTimetampExtractor (instead of the default extractor). For ensure that each record is only emitted once, you should change the suppress() configuration to only emit "final" results.
Related
I need to implement a logic similar to session windows using processor API in order to have a full control over state store. Since processor API doesn't provide windowing abstraction, this needs to be done manually. However, I fail to find the source code for KStreams session window logic, to get some initial ideas (specifically regarding session timeouts).
I was expecting to use punctuate method, but it's a per processor timer rather than per key timer. Additionally SessionStore<K, AGG> doesn't provide an API to traverse the database for all keys.
[UPDATE]
As an example, assume processor instance is processing K1 and stream time is incremented which causes the session for K2 to timeout. K2 may or may not exist at all. How do you know that there exists a specific key (like K2 when stream time is incremented (while processing a different key)? In other words when stream time is incremented, how do you figure out which windows are expired (because you don't know those keys exists)?
This is the DSL code: https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/kstream/internals/KStreamSessionWindowAggregate.java -- hope it helps.
It's unclear what your question is though -- it's mostly statements. So let me try to give some general answer.
In the DSL, sessions are close based on "stream time" progress. Only relying on the input data makes the operation deterministic. Using wall-clock time would introduce non-determinism. Hence, using a Punctuation is not necessary in the DSL implementation.
Additionally SessionStore<K, AGG> doesn't provide an API to traverse the database for all keys.
Sessions in the DSL are based on keys and thus it's sufficient to scan the store on a per-key basis over a time range (as done via findSessions(...)).
Update:
In the DSL, each time a session window is updated, as corresponding update event is sent downstream immediately. Hence, the DSL implementation does not wait for "stream time" to advance any further but publishes the current (potentially intermediate) result right away.
To obey the grace period, the record timestamp is compared to "stream time" and if the corresponding session window is already closed, the record is skipped (cf. https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/kstream/internals/KStreamSessionWindowAggregate.java#L146). I.e., closing a window is just a logical step (not an actually operation); the session will still be stored and if a window is closed no additional event needs to be sent downstream because the final result was sent downstream in the last update to the window already.
Retention time itself must not be handled by the Processor implementation because it's a built-in feature of the SessionStore: internally, the session store maintains so-called "segments" that store sessions for a certain time period. Each time a put() is done, the store checks if old segments can be dropped (based on the timestamp provided by put()). I.e., old sessions are deleted lazily and as bulk deletes (i.e., all session of the whole segment will be deleted at once) as it's more efficient than individual deletes.
I'm building a Kafka Streams application that generates change events by comparing every new calculated object with the last known object.
So for every message on the input topic, I update an object in a state store and every once in a while (using punctuate), I apply a calculation on this object and compare the result with the previous calculation result (coming from another state store).
To make sure this operation is consistent, I do the following after the punctuate triggers:
write a tuple to the state store
compare the two values, create change events and context.forward them. So the events go to the results topic.
swap the tuple by the new_value and write it to the state store
I use this tuple for scenario's where the application crashes or rebalances, so I can always send out the correct set of events before continuing.
Now, I noticed the resulting events are not always consistent, especially if the application frequently rebalances. It looks like in rare cases the Kafka Streams application emits events to the results topic, but the changelog topic is not up to date yet. In other words, I produced something to the results topic, but my changelog topic is not at the same state yet.
So, when I do a stateStore.put() and the method call returns successfully, are there any guarantees when it will be on the changelog topic?
Can I enforce a changelog flush? When I do context.commit(), when will that flush+commit happen?
To get complete consistency, you will need to enable processing.guarantee="exaclty_once" -- otherwise, with a potential error, you might get inconsistent results.
If you want to stay with "at_least_once", you might want to use a single store, and update the store after processing is done (ie, after calling forward()). This minimized the time window to get inconsistencies.
And yes, if you call context.commit(), before input topic offsets are committed, all stores will be flushed to disk, and all pending producer writes will also be flushed.
I have a system where we process text messages. Each message gets split up into sentences, and each sentence gets processed individually and the results of each sentence get published to a topic. This all happens asynchronously.
I want to be able to aggregate the results for the sentences.
The problem is that I want the window to end when the total number of sentences have been reached, or when a total amount of time has passed. Basically Tumbling time windows, but can end when a total number of results have been received.
Secondarily I want to be able to know when that window ends so that I can process the aggregation as an atomic event.
It's possible but you have to implement a custom processor - your requirements are simply to specific for the high-level API to cater for.
Your processor would store messages into a state store and use punctuate to periodically check if the window expired. It would also keep a running counter and check if the max number of results have been received. If either condition is met, it does the aggregation, removes messages from the state store and sends the results downstream.
You'd have to think about what to do on restart (failover/re-balancing). When starting up, the processor should inspect its state store and calculate the current running count and the window expiry time.
Now Apache Kafka offers you a way to wait closing the window. Here piece of code;
suppress(Suppressed.untilWindowCloses(Suppressed.BufferConfig.unbounded()))
For more, check it out.
According to carbon.conf
any metrics received in excess of MAX_CREATES_PER_MINUTE value will be
silently dropped, and the whisper file will not be created until such
point as a subsequent metric is received and fits within the defined
rate limit
I'm wondering why not putting them in cache (similar to MAX_UPDATES_PER_SECOND behaviour) instead?
I'm currently implementing EventSourcing for my Go Actor lib.
The problem that I have right now is that when an actor restarts and need to replay all it's state from the event journal, the query might return inconsistent data.
I know that I can solve this using MutationToken
But, if I do that, I would be forced to write all events in sequential order, that is, write the last event last.
That way the mutation token for the last event would be enough to get all the data consistently for the specific actor.
This is however very slow, writing about 10 000 events in order, takes about 5 sec on my setup.
If I instead write those 10 000 async, using go routines, I can write all of the data in less than one sec.
But, then the writes are in indeterministic order and I can know which mutation token I can trust.
e.g. Event 999 might be written before Event 843 due to go routine scheduling AFAIK.
What are my options here?
Technically speaking MutationToken and asynchronous operations are not mutually exclusive. It may be able to be done without a change to the client (I'm not sure) but the key here is to take all MutationToken responses and then issue the query with the highest number per vbucket with all of them.
The key here is that given a single MutationToken, you can add the others to it. I don't directly see a way to do this, but since internally it's just a map it should be relatively straightforward and I'm sure we (Couchbase) would take a contribution that does this. At the lowest level, it's just a map of vbucket sequences that is provided to query at the time the query is issued.