Skip to content

Conversation

akshaisarma
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Apr 10, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.0006%) to 99.566% when pulling 53e9068 on akshaisarma:frontload-delay into 90a2893 on yahoo:master.

* buffer the results in the Join stage for a bit for each window as results trickle in. The issue with the latter
* approach is that you will slowly add the buffer time to the duration of your windows in your Join stage and
* eventually you will get two windows in one. The former approach does not have this problem. However, that approach
* could lead you to drop results for record based windows due to the result. To solve these, you should buffer
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about However, that approach could lead to results sent immediately from the filter stage being dropped in the join stage if the query is still being delayed.

* could lead you to drop results for record based windows due to the result. To solve these, you should buffer
* the final results for all queries for whom {@link #shouldBuffer()} is true. And you can use the negation of
* {@link #shouldBuffer()} to find out if this kind of query can be started after a bit of delay. This delay will
* ensure that results from the Filter phase always start for time based windows. To aid you in doing this, you can
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This sentence This delay will ensure that results from the Filter phase always start for time based windows. is a little confusing. Did you mean something like This delay will ensure that results from the filter phase are collected in their entirety before emitting from the join phase.?

@NathanSpeidel
Copy link
Member

Code changes look great. I just had a couple suggestions for comments. 👍

@akshaisarma akshaisarma merged commit 4a2293e into bullet-db:master Apr 10, 2018
@akshaisarma akshaisarma deleted the frontload-delay branch April 10, 2018 21:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants