drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@dremio.com>
Subject Re: Can we pass the #skipped records with RecordBatch?
Date Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:15:41 GMT
You seem to be mixing multiple things in your response.

- Why do you say this complex? It is very simple. Is it because you don't
know how it would be implemented? I'm offering to do the vast majority of
the work to implement the framework so you shouldn't use that as a gauge.
- It is designed to provide for multiple different use cases, not just your
own. As such, you should expect it to be more general. There is clearly a
need to provide these messages in direction other than straight up the
operator tree. There is also a need to provide sideband messages outside
the context of a record batch. (We shouldn't be creating fake empty record
batches just to send sideband messages, that caused us problems before on
the UserRpc and I think we should compound purposes.)
- You should evaluate whether it would solve the use case you presented. I
believe it will.

As far as your proposed implementation goes: I think you are confounding
communication with the user with traversal of the operator tree. I would
assume that each operator may be able to skip records. When you accumulate
that information, you would want to know how much skip there were for each
operator. The info might look like:

skips: [
{ op: 1:1:1, records: [123,456,789]}
{ op: 1:2:1, records: [123,456,789]}
{ op: 1:1:2, records: [123,456,789]}
{ op: 1:2:2, records: [123,456,789]}
]

In this case, there is no need for operator 1:1:1 to know about operator
1:1:2's skips. It shouldn't even need to manage or move that data. So I
believe your requirements are actually to provide a stream of skip records
to a separate writer that should be on the edge of the plan. The more I
talk through this, I'm wondering if sideband messages should take the same
shape as a separate record batch and that we need to provide a separate
subtree/fragment for this purpose. Sideband in that case would be a tee in
the plan.

For example, imagine this tree:

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/19w7lbpnajsmQPUqzxlb2JP2jr6MsGU9RDOmQO1N05uU/edit

As you can see, I believe that the vast majority of the issues that you
want to manage with your skip record design can be managed by providing a
couple of simple tools: sideband, sideband sink operator (basically a
custom version of the union receiver), and an enhancement to the Screen
operator to support a secondary incoming stream with a defined schema that
will be transformed into a set of warnings (this also allows fine grained
warnings or use an aggregate in the secondary tree for aggregate warnings).

The key goal here is trying to avoid the introduction of a new or more
complicated interfaces at the execution layer and instead use the logical
layer to manage things. I believe this also extends to the concept of
$recordIdentifier (or similar). This should simply be a virtual field
produced by all record readers (when requested) that includes relevant
provenance information. If you want to know which records are problematic,
ask for the identifier and then record in a separate file. Basically, let's
use the highly efficient infrastructure we already have to do new things
rather than implementing a new set of classes and concepts.


--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Hsuan Yi Chu <hyichu@maprtech.com> wrote:

> The design scope is very general, but, for the applications we are thinking
> about now, this is a bit complex and will make the solutions a little bit
> indirect. Especially, this one "data to be sent between any two
> three-coordinate locations" implies sideband data goes in teleport? This is
> a bit too involving. And even for advanced pushdown, it is not necessary to
> be that flexible for communications.
>
> My original picture of "sideband" is that the additional information should
> be "associated with" RecordBatch. That means this additional information
> should be attached to a particular RecordBatch and cannot run on their own.
>
> As the RecordBatch flows from upstream to downstream, the operator can
> optionally access or update the sideband message.
> For example, in the application of record-skipping, operator can see how
> many records were skipped so far and increment the count if more are
> skipped.
>
> If we go with this design, the place we need to change is on the receiver
> side, which needs to decode the sideband info from the incoming buffers.
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com> wrote:
>
> > inline
> >
> > It seems that SidebandTunnel is point-to-point. That is, there is one
> > > producer and one consumer. No broadcast or topics (multiple consumers
> of
> > > the same message). Order is preserved. At-most-once (i.e. may lose data
> > in
> > > event of failure). Producer and consumer may be on the same node or
> > > different nodes. Correct?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you are correct in all of this. Since we don't use UDP in Drill, we
> do
> > broadcast as a collection of individual p2p calls, all using the same
> > message (and multiple reference counts if using raw bytes).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I’m not sure SidebandTunnel.close is necessary. I would presume that a
> > > SidebandTunnel is closed when its associated statement is closed, and
> > only
> > > then.
> > >
> >
> > I started without it. My thought was that we may need to signal that
> you've
> > gotten all of a sideband stream prior to the close of a particular
> > fragment. If I'm on the downside of an operation reporting multiple
> skips,
> > I may want to hold off on reporting to the user until I got all of the
> > messages. One option is for the sender to send a discrete message via the
> > Tunnel close. The other option is a implicit message when the fragment is
> > completed. I like the latter from a cleanliness perspective but think the
> > former may be required. I'm ok for not exposing at the tunnel level
> > publically initially and we can always expose later. I would love to hear
> > whether people think there is going to be a need/use case to continue
> > fragment operation but have another operator know that a sideband stream
> is
> > complete. Maybe when sending a downstream set of samples on the first 1mm
> > records of a larger scan?
> >
> >
> > > Also, would it be easier if the tunnels were defined as part of the
> DAG,
> > > and DAG initialization time was the only time that they could be
> created?
> > >
> >
> > That is a really good question. I need to think about it a bit. I'm not
> > sure it is easier given my initial proposal is to piggy-back on the
> > DataTunnel, (which is independent of DAG initialization).  However, it
> > might be cleaner if operators have to declare this relationship at
> > initialization time and it is all managed 'outside'.
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback. Will need to think further on your last point
> > especially.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Dec 8, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please see some initial thoughts attached. Would love feedback and
> > > thoughts
> > > > from others on how we can shape this.
> > > >
> > > > https://gist.github.com/jacques-n/84b13e704e0e3829ca99
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jacques Nadeau
> > > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Zelaine Fong <zfong@maprtech.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Yes, it would be great to get your thoughts so we can assess the
> scope
> > > of
> > > >> what's involved.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks.
> > > >>
> > > >> -- Zelaine
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Definitely agree that we shouldn't boil the ocean.  That said,
I
> > don't
> > > >>> think we should make RecordBatch interface changes without
> deliberate
> > > >>> design. Same for RPC protocol changes. Part of my internal struggle
> > > with
> > > >>> the warning patch is exactly this lack of broader design. I think
> > this
> > > is
> > > >>> especially true given the drive to supports backwards
> compatibility.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I don't think we're talking about a massive undertaking. I'll
try
> to
> > > >> write
> > > >>> up some thoughts later this week to get the ball rolling. Sound
> good?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Jacques Nadeau
> > > >>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > > >>> +1 on having a framework.
> > > >>> OTOH, as with the warnings implementation, we might want to go
> ahead
> > > >> with a
> > > >>> simpler implementation while we get a more generic framework design
> > in
> > > >>> place.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jacques, do you have any preliminary thoughts on the framework?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> +1 for a sideband mechanism.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sideband can also allow correlated restart of sub-queries.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> In sideband use cases you described, the messages ran in the
> > opposite
> > > >>>> direction to the data. Would the sideband also run in the
same
> > > >> direction
> > > >>> as
> > > >>>> the data? If so it could carry warnings, rejected rows, progress
> > > >>>> indications, and (for online aggregation[1]) notifications
that a
> > > >> better
> > > >>>> approximate query result is available.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Julian
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_aggregation
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> This seems like a form of sideband communication. I think
we
> should
> > > >>> have
> > > >>>> a
> > > >>>>> framework for this type of thing in general rather than
a one-off
> > for
> > > >>>> this
> > > >>>>> particular need. Other forms of sideband might be small
table
> > > >>> bloomfilter
> > > >>>>> generation and pushdown into hbase, separate file
> > > >>> assignment/partitioning
> > > >>>>> providers balancing/generating scanner workloads, statistics
> > > >> generation
> > > >>>> for
> > > >>>>> adaptive execution, etc.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > > >>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Hsuan Yi Chu <
> hyichu@maprtech.com
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I am trying to deal with the following scenario:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> A bunch of minor fragments are doing things in parallel.
Each of
> > > >> them
> > > >>>> could
> > > >>>>>> skip some records. Since the downstream minor fragment
needs to
> > know
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>> sum of skipped-record-counts (in order to just display
or see if
> > the
> > > >>>> number
> > > >>>>>> exceeds the threshold) in the upstreams, each upstream
minor
> > > >> fragment
> > > >>>> needs
> > > >>>>>> to pass this scalar with RecordBatch.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Since this seems impacting the protocol of RecordBatch,
I am
> > looking
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>>> some advice here.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message