Skip to content
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

[Bug]: Flink might ignore Reshuffle in batch mode #30621

Closed
1 of 16 tasks
je-ik opened this issue Mar 13, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #30622
Closed
1 of 16 tasks

[Bug]: Flink might ignore Reshuffle in batch mode #30621

je-ik opened this issue Mar 13, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #30622
Assignees

Comments

@je-ik
Copy link
Contributor

je-ik commented Mar 13, 2024

What happened?

Translation for Reshuffle in batch uses optimizer hint, which can be ignored. This results in scalability issues, for instance in batch SDF.

Issue Priority

Priority: 2 (default / most bugs should be filed as P2)

Issue Components

  • Component: Python SDK
  • Component: Java SDK
  • Component: Go SDK
  • Component: Typescript SDK
  • Component: IO connector
  • Component: Beam YAML
  • Component: Beam examples
  • Component: Beam playground
  • Component: Beam katas
  • Component: Website
  • Component: Spark Runner
  • Component: Flink Runner
  • Component: Samza Runner
  • Component: Twister2 Runner
  • Component: Hazelcast Jet Runner
  • Component: Google Cloud Dataflow Runner
@kennknowles
Copy link
Member

But it is by design that it could be ignored. Is it extremely likely to be ignored? Like you saw real performance issues?

IMO forcing a groupby and then expansion is probably excessive cost on top of what reshuffle really needs to do

@je-ik
Copy link
Contributor Author

je-ik commented Mar 13, 2024

Yes, I saw performance issues on batch SDF. What is even worse is that this was not deterministic. We either have to (somehow) force redistribution on Reshuffle or use GBK-unGBK in the implementation of SDF.

Prior to the change to hints, there was call to rebalance, which would be good enoughz although it was changed in order to not ignore chain of Reshuffles. I'm not sure why this matters, I will try to find more info.

je-ik added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 14, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 2.56.0 Release milestone Mar 14, 2024
hjtran pushed a commit to hjtran/beam that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants