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

[FLINK-22844]Add doc to introduce ExplainDetails for EXPLAIN sytnax #16051

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 17, 2021

Conversation

chaozwn
Copy link
Contributor

@chaozwn chaozwn commented Jun 2, 2021

What is the purpose of the change

(For example: This pull request makes task deployment go through the blob server, rather than through RPC. That way we avoid re-transferring them on each deployment (during recovery).)

Brief change log

(for example:)

  • The TaskInfo is stored in the blob store on job creation time as a persistent artifact
  • Deployments RPC transmits only the blob storage reference
  • TaskManagers retrieve the TaskInfo from the blob cache

Verifying this change

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(example:)

  • Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads (100MB)
  • Extended integration test for recovery after master (JobManager) failure
  • Added test that validates that TaskInfo is transferred only once across recoveries
  • Manually verified the change by running a 4 node cluser with 2 JobManagers and 4 TaskManagers, a stateful streaming program, and killing one JobManager and two TaskManagers during the execution, verifying that recovery happens correctly.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (yes / no)
  • The serializers: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / no / don't know)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Jun 2, 2021

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit c4831e9 (Wed Jun 02 07:22:54 UTC 2021)

✅no warnings

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.


The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Jun 2, 2021

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

Copy link
Contributor

@leonardBang leonardBang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @chaozwn for the contribution, the content looks good, I left some syntax comments.

@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ under the License.

EXPLAIN statements are used to explain the logical and optimized query plans of a query or an INSERT statement.


Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

revert the unnecessary change

{{< top >}}

## ExplainDetails
```sql
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The quoted content is not SQL

Comment on lines 285 to 286


Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

useless

```


Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

useless

{{< top >}}

## ExplainDetails
```text
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

as above

Comment on lines 285 to 286


Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

as above

@leonardBang
Copy link
Contributor

@chaozwn Thanks for the update, but when we resolve reviewer's comment, we should append commit rather than squashing and force pushing which we cannot know the comment is fixed or not, because the squash way can not compare with previous comment and reviewer have to review again.

@chaozwn
Copy link
Contributor Author

chaozwn commented Jul 20, 2021

@chaozwn Thanks for the update, but when we resolve reviewer's comment, we should append commit rather than squashing and force pushing which we cannot know the comment is fixed or not, because the squash way can not compare with previous comment and reviewer have to review again.

I'm very sorry about do this.The reason why I use force push is because the latest version of flink is too big, and I need to re-merge a large number of branches in the code, and this may cause the display of this branch to be abnormal.

@chaozwn
Copy link
Contributor Author

chaozwn commented Jul 20, 2021

@chaozwn Thanks for the update, but when we resolve reviewer's comment, we should append commit rather than squashing and force pushing which we cannot know the comment is fixed or not, because the squash way can not compare with previous comment and reviewer have to review again.

in next time, I will choose rebase master carefully

@leonardBang
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, rebasing master is recommended, and it doesn't matter.

Copy link
Contributor

@leonardBang leonardBang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@chaozwn Sorry for the late response, I left minor comments, Could you also update your commit message which should be [FLINK-22844] ?

Comment on lines +167 to +170
Flink SQL> CREATE TABLE MyTable1 (`count` bigint, word VARCHAR(256)) WITH ('connector' = 'datagen');
[INFO] Table has been created.

Flink SQL> CREATE TABLE MyTable2 (`count` bigint, word VARCHAR(256);
Flink SQL> CREATE TABLE MyTable2 (`count` bigint, word VARCHAR(256)) WITH ('connector' = 'datagen');
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice change, could you also add connector option for other languages?


{{< tabs "explain result" >}}

{{< tab "PLAN FOR" >}}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
{{< tab "PLAN FOR" >}}
{{< tab "EXPLAIN PLAN" >}}


{{< /tab >}}

{{< tab "EXPLAINDETAILS" >}}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
{{< tab "EXPLAINDETAILS" >}}
{{< tab "EXPLAIN PLAN WITH DETAILS" >}}

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have completed the modification.

adapt explain detail new function, add description how to use explain details.
adapt explain detail new function, add description how to use explain details.
Copy link
Contributor

@leonardBang leonardBang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for he update @chaozwn , LGTM

@wuchong
Copy link
Member

wuchong commented Aug 17, 2021

Merging...

@wuchong wuchong merged commit 6ce650c into apache:master Aug 17, 2021
hhkkxxx133 pushed a commit to hhkkxxx133/flink that referenced this pull request Aug 25, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants