Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C29B200C48 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:17:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 5AB12160B84; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:17:35 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id A1B8C160B83 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:17:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 70747 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2017 11:17:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flink.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@flink.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@flink.apache.org Received: (qmail 70735 invoked by uid 99); 6 Apr 2017 11:17:33 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:17:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 12AE0C05E9 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:17:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.379 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.379 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9tySkSslOHSQ for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:17:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f174.google.com (mail-yw0-f174.google.com [209.85.161.174]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id CB7C45FAE7 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f174.google.com with SMTP id p77so18437475ywg.1 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 04:17:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=9/4MJmVjNrba77HYiHkMudcML5PEvoP/HSgJnb2LsOA=; b=a55JsXS2hApa+cXr+ireBV4hdKdYSBmhQy703+ue0IL3XiopHD+ZpyxjQsZvfvmkdY 34GTh51nmiAGZKt3NIPlPQFqY+01r5dAWdX1IDLaQ1vI50I2L59PWa3zO0al90AfaPry sbljfzMOj9i3FbcwwnJLDOFpZ1S8YJYWYf9KTUM9LK0yRLHE3cN+LwMnk/0nQTt+prgT VycPaX2hlq3KHxOseyBky2sIJNEPBOHYkqc0Gvf7JahduoLzD+ZtBM0kp5TRLqg3ooku W3VHVAD4UF+9ZlK2IxJEZJ17f5jG2ZMiuqEgNudnRvnwF1dTvqXAlTfLBn6C5FsGiY6l 75ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=9/4MJmVjNrba77HYiHkMudcML5PEvoP/HSgJnb2LsOA=; b=OlubpY64Oh70jmLDB9KffDe8pc+3Ut1Iw077QzJJQCJHgRFUxgYWdZEnNHlZ67EapW jZhEbH17oeZfiny1rTMBvZS8RjqZKqFWPM8Gi13gQiTFOtICKvEst4MFfEKw+7aZbnWA YsC0JRO6ji7C6ujqlh9Kart/1wnb198kiWMpeyxye+b7IIJbZWHse6V2A6YQmpvXg1tq YPjpIce8WXWg/O9ElkOFa57FBiFeTIABdWwXY4A7okTF9Xm1MHyFnNRbt2YnLqHsiNUm Tkk2Iz2LMnHvw7V4VHOO46YwDWfEoigHdjPQuBHAXl3zEMtZQNq+hik5KjW+85PFDX4k BAQg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2T/ltXikKqVqutRSG5XvszjPhiSd8f3swgNeMJD9w35mvXZ3PwgV9zY/QpimR+TFQMRi7DIeAQORASsA== X-Received: by 10.129.182.34 with SMTP id u34mr22251537ywh.6.1491477451166; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 04:17:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.83.31.7 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 04:17:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <633F19C6003CFF44891E456BB8269E55014E6B92@lhreml505-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <633F19C6003CFF44891E456BB8269E55014E6B92@lhreml505-mbs.china.huawei.com> From: Fabian Hueske Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:17:00 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: StreamSQL procTime granularity To: "dev@flink.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c18db3aab014c054c7da762 archived-at: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:17:35 -0000 --94eb2c18db3aab014c054c7da762 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Stefano, thanks for starting this discussion. I think treating processing time with a nanosecond resolution might be difficult for a few reasons: - We would need to treat it in all operators as nanotime (joins, etc.) - Flink does not provide tooling for nanotime resolution. The internal timer service is on milliseconds. - We could not use the testing facilities that the DataStream API offers because they work on milliseconds. I'm not sure what the benefits of switching to nanoseconds would be. Sure, higher resolution sounds good, but on the other hand processing time is somewhat arbitrary anyway. Best, Fabian 2017-04-04 10:23 GMT+02:00 Stefano Bortoli : > Hi guys, > > Based on the discussion about time management in > https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3641 , does it make sense to use > nanoTime for procTime semantic aggregation processing? This way we will not > have the possibility of events falling in the same "millisecond" processing > bucket and keep a consistent aggregation sorting (also in the state). I > understand that event-time cannot be managed in nanosecond as java does not > give wall-clock time in nanoseconds, but for the procTime within the JVM we > should be safe. > > Please let me know what you think. > > Best, > Stefano > > --94eb2c18db3aab014c054c7da762--