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

[SPARK-20714] [SS] Fix match error when watermark is set with timeout = no timeout / processing timeout #17954

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

tdas
Copy link
Contributor

@tdas tdas commented May 11, 2017

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

When watermark is set, and timeout conf is NoTimeout or ProcessingTimeTimeout (both do not need the watermark), the query fails at runtime with the following exception.

MatchException: Some(org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.expressions.GeneratedClass$SpecificPredicate@1a9b798e) (of class scala.Some)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec$$anonfun$doExecute$1.apply(FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec.scala:120)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec$$anonfun$doExecute$1.apply(FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec.scala:116)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.package$StateStoreOps$$anonfun$1.apply(package.scala:70)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.package$StateStoreOps$$anonfun$1.apply(package.scala:65)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.StateStoreRDD.compute(StateStoreRDD.scala:64)

The match did not correctly handle cases where watermark was defined by the timeout was different from EventTimeTimeout.

How was this patch tested?

New unit tests.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 12, 2017

Test build #76833 has finished for PR 17954 at commit 53a7491.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@tdas
Copy link
Contributor Author

tdas commented May 12, 2017

@marmbrus @zsxwing

@zsxwing
Copy link
Member

zsxwing commented May 12, 2017

LGTM. Merging to master and 2.2.

asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 12, 2017
…= no timeout / processing timeout

## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

When watermark is set, and timeout conf is NoTimeout or ProcessingTimeTimeout (both do not need the watermark), the query fails at runtime with the following exception.
```
MatchException: Some(org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.expressions.GeneratedClass$SpecificPredicate1a9b798e) (of class scala.Some)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec$$anonfun$doExecute$1.apply(FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec.scala:120)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec$$anonfun$doExecute$1.apply(FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec.scala:116)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.package$StateStoreOps$$anonfun$1.apply(package.scala:70)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.package$StateStoreOps$$anonfun$1.apply(package.scala:65)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.StateStoreRDD.compute(StateStoreRDD.scala:64)
```

The match did not correctly handle cases where watermark was defined by the timeout was different from EventTimeTimeout.

## How was this patch tested?
New unit tests.

Author: Tathagata Das <[email protected]>

Closes #17954 from tdas/SPARK-20714.

(cherry picked from commit 0d3a631)
Signed-off-by: Shixiong Zhu <[email protected]>
@asfgit asfgit closed this in 0d3a631 May 12, 2017
robert3005 pushed a commit to palantir/spark that referenced this pull request May 19, 2017
…= no timeout / processing timeout

## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

When watermark is set, and timeout conf is NoTimeout or ProcessingTimeTimeout (both do not need the watermark), the query fails at runtime with the following exception.
```
MatchException: Some(org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.expressions.GeneratedClass$SpecificPredicate1a9b798e) (of class scala.Some)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec$$anonfun$doExecute$1.apply(FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec.scala:120)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec$$anonfun$doExecute$1.apply(FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec.scala:116)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.package$StateStoreOps$$anonfun$1.apply(package.scala:70)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.package$StateStoreOps$$anonfun$1.apply(package.scala:65)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.StateStoreRDD.compute(StateStoreRDD.scala:64)
```

The match did not correctly handle cases where watermark was defined by the timeout was different from EventTimeTimeout.

## How was this patch tested?
New unit tests.

Author: Tathagata Das <[email protected]>

Closes apache#17954 from tdas/SPARK-20714.
liyichao pushed a commit to liyichao/spark that referenced this pull request May 24, 2017
…= no timeout / processing timeout

## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

When watermark is set, and timeout conf is NoTimeout or ProcessingTimeTimeout (both do not need the watermark), the query fails at runtime with the following exception.
```
MatchException: Some(org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.expressions.GeneratedClass$SpecificPredicate1a9b798e) (of class scala.Some)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec$$anonfun$doExecute$1.apply(FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec.scala:120)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec$$anonfun$doExecute$1.apply(FlatMapGroupsWithStateExec.scala:116)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.package$StateStoreOps$$anonfun$1.apply(package.scala:70)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.package$StateStoreOps$$anonfun$1.apply(package.scala:65)
    org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.state.StateStoreRDD.compute(StateStoreRDD.scala:64)
```

The match did not correctly handle cases where watermark was defined by the timeout was different from EventTimeTimeout.

## How was this patch tested?
New unit tests.

Author: Tathagata Das <[email protected]>

Closes apache#17954 from tdas/SPARK-20714.
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.

3 participants