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

Support for Flink's SpeculativeExecution in batch execution mode #10548

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

venkata91
Copy link

@venkata91 venkata91 commented Jun 21, 2024

Summary

Add support for Flink's Speculative Execution in batch execution mode

Testing

Existing tests should take care of it

@github-actions github-actions bot added the flink label Jun 21, 2024
@venkata91 venkata91 changed the base branch from main to 1.1.x June 21, 2024 18:13
Copy link

@becketqin becketqin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@venkata91 Thanks for the patch. Left a comment. It looks like there is a simpler approach.

@venkata91 venkata91 changed the base branch from 1.1.x to main June 29, 2024 04:47
@venkata91 venkata91 changed the title Support for Flink's SpeculativeExecution Support for Flink's SpeculativeExecution in batch execution mode Jun 29, 2024
@venkata91 venkata91 marked this pull request as ready for review June 29, 2024 04:48
@venkata91
Copy link
Author

cc @stevenzwu for review. Should this change also be made in other Flink versions like Flink-1.17 and Flink-1.18?

@pvary
Copy link
Contributor

pvary commented Jul 3, 2024

@venkata91: How can we be sure that the tests are exercising the speculative execution code path?

Does any of the tests reads some splits multiple times, and use the result of the faster one?

I think it would be useful to have a test demonstrating that the behavior works, to prevent disabling it by an unrelated change by accident.

@venkata91
Copy link
Author

@venkata91: How can we be sure that the tests are exercising the speculative execution code path?

Does any of the tests reads some splits multiple times, and use the result of the faster one?

I think it would be useful to have a test demonstrating that the behavior works, to prevent disabling it by an unrelated change by accident.

Sure sounds good. Will add a test.

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.

None yet

3 participants