I want to use Kafka Processor API to process messages from Kafka.
I would like to call some periodically function - something like:
context.schedule(IntervalMS,punctuationType, somePunctuator), where somePunctuator perform some periodical job, but instead using interval time as trigger I would like to invoke that task after processing some number of messages
Is it possible do such triggering in Kafka streams?
yes, it's possible with using Kafka Streams State Store.
logic depends on what exactly you need to do on reaching the number of processed messages.
if you need to propagate data to the next processor or sink node, you need to store aggregated values as a list of objects inside key-value state store. inside Processor.process(..) you put data into key-value store, and after that check whether number of items reached limit, and do required logic (like processorContext.forward(..)). please take a look at similar example here.
if you need to do some logic after reaching number and don't need values, you could store only counter, and inside Processor.process(..) increment this value.
Related
I guess the title is confusing, but I could not find a better one.
I have an event stream in MongoDB with multiple producers and one consumer. To ensure that I read each event exactly once in the correct order, I use the MongoDB timestamp type as an incrementing value, populated by the server. In the SQL world I would probably use an auto-incremented integer.
My consumer just polls MongoDB and asks for all events since the last timestamp it has seen. In one of the environments we have realized that sometimes the consumer does not handle all events. It does not happen very often, like one of 50.000 events is missed, but ideally it should not happen at all.
My assumption is that MongoDB does something like this internally.
ParseDocument(doc);
lock
{
SetTimestamp(doc);
}
WriteDocument(doc);
UpdateIndex(doc);
So it could happen that for a very short period of time an document is not available when the consumer queries the events, because only event #1, #2 and #4 is written yet and event #3 is written a fraction of a millisecond later.
I Have seen this with a C# client and MongoDB 4.2 running in Docker, but I guess the client does not matter here.
Is this assumption correct and if yes, what can I do it?
My idea is to change my consumer to ask for all events since the last timestamp minus a few seconds and then filter out the already received events in the consumer.
But is there a more elegant solution? Perhaps some way to enforce collection level write locks or could transactions help?
Since you said "consumer" - singular, I suggest:
Use a change stream to be notified of events. Change stream, if correctly iterated, will not skip changes nor will it return the same change twice.
Whenever a document is returned from change stream, when it is processed by the singular consumer, add a counter to it. Since there is only one consumer it is relatively easy to implement the counter without race conditions and such.
Also write the current resume token into each event being processed.
If you wish, you can use the counter to uniquely identify the events.
To iterate events again, use the counter to look up events in the past. Given that each event has both a counter and a resume token, once you get to the most recent event you can seamlessly transition from iterating based on the counter to iterating based on the resume token.
What is the fundamental difference between an event with a batch of data attached and a kafka stream that occasionally sends data ? Can they be used interchangeably ? When should I use the first and when the latter ? Could you provide some simple use cases ?
Note: There is some info in the comments of this question but I would ask for a more well rounded answer.
I assume that with "difference" between streams and events with batched data you are thinking of:
Stream: Every event of interest is sent immediately to the stream. Those individual events are therefore fine-grained, small(er) in size.
Events with data batch: Multiple individual events get aggregated into a larger batch, and when the batch reaches a certain size, a certain time has passed, or a business transaction has completed, the batch event is sent to the stream. Those batch events are therefore more coarse-grained and large(r) in size.
Here is a list of characteristics that I can think of:
Realtime/latency: End-to-end processing time will typically be smaller for individual events, and longer for batch events, because the publisher may wait with sending batch events until enough individual events have accumulated.
Throughput: Message brokers differ in performance characteristics regarding max. # of in/out events / sec at comparable in/out amounts of data. For example, comparing Kinesis vs. Kafka, Kinesis has a lower max. # of in/out events / sec it can handle than a finely tuned Kafka cluster. So if you were to use Kinesis, batch events may make more sense to achieve the desired throughput in terms of # of individual events. Note: From what I know, the Kinesis client library has a feature to transparently batch individual events if desired/possible to increase throughput.
Order and correlation: If multiple individual events belong to one business transaction and need to be processed by consumers together and/or possibly in order, then batch events may make this task easier because all related data becomes available to consumers at once. With individual events, you would have to put appropriate measures in place like selecting appropriate partition keys to guarantee that individual events get processed in order and possibly by the same consumer worker instance.
Failure case: If batch events contain independent individual events, then it may happen that a subset of individual events in a batch fails to process (irrelevant whether temporary or permanent failure). In such a case, consumers may not be able to simply retry the entire event because parts of the batch event has already caused state changes. Explicit logic (=additional effort) may be necessary to handle partial processing failure of batch events.
To answer your question whether the two can be used interchangeably, I would say in theory yes, but depending on the specific use case, one of the two approaches will likely result better performance or result in less complex design/code/configuration.
I'll edit my answer if I can think of more differentiating characteristics.
I'm using Cassandra and Kafka for event-sourcing, and it works quite well. But I've just recently discovered a potentially major flaw in the design/set-up. A brief intro to how it is done:
The aggregate command handler is basically a kafka consumer, which consumes messages of interest on a topic:
1.1 When it receives a command, it loads all events for the aggregate, and replays the aggregate event handler for each event to get the aggregate up to current state.
1.2 Based on the command and businiss logic it then applies one or more events to the event store. This involves inserting the new event(s) to the event store table in cassandra. The events are stamped with a version number for the aggregate - starting at version 0 for a new aggregate, making projections possible. In addition it sends the event to another topic (for projection purposes).
1.3 A kafka consumer will listen on the topic upon these events are published. This consumer will act as a projector. When it receives an event of interest, it loads the current read model for the aggregate. It checks that the version of the event it has received is the expected version, and then updates the read model.
This seems to work very well. The problem is when I want to have what EventStore calls category projections. Let's take Order aggregate as an example. I can easily project one or more read models pr Order. But if I want to for example have a projection which contains a customers 30 last orders, then I would need a category projection.
I'm just scratching my head how to accomplish this. I'm curious to know if any other are using Cassandra and Kafka for event sourcing. I've read a couple of places that some people discourage it. Maybe this is the reason.
I know EventStore has support for this built in. Maybe using Kafka as event store would be a better solution.
With this kind of architecture, you have to choose between:
Global event stream per type - simple
Partitioned event stream per type - scalable
Unless your system is fairly high throughput (say at least 10s or 100s of events per second for sustained periods to the stream type in question), the global stream is the simpler approach. Some systems (such as Event Store) give you the best of both worlds, by having very fine-grained streams (such as per aggregate instance) but with the ability to combine them into larger streams (per stream type/category/partition, per multiple stream types, etc.) in a performant and predictable way out of the box, while still being simple by only requiring you to keep track of a single global event position.
If you go partitioned with Kafka:
Your projection code will need to handle concurrent consumer groups accessing the same read models when processing events for different partitions that need to go into the same models. Depending on your target store for the projection, there are lots of ways to handle this (transactions, optimistic concurrency, atomic operations, etc.) but it would be a problem for some target stores
Your projection code will need to keep track of the stream position of each partition, not just a single position. If your projection reads from multiple streams, it has to keep track of lots of positions.
Using a global stream removes both of those concerns - performance is usually likely to be good enough.
In either case, you'll likely also want to get the stream position into the long term event storage (i.e. Cassandra) - you could do this by having a dedicated process reading from the event stream (partitioned or global) and just updating the events in Cassandra with the global or partition position of each event. (I have a similar thing with MongoDB - I have a process reading the 'oplog' and copying oplog timestamps into events, since oplog timestamps are totally ordered).
Another option is to drop Cassandra from the initial command processing and use Kafka Streams instead:
Partitioned command stream is processed by joining with a partitioned KTable of aggregates
Command result and events are computed
Atomically, KTable is updated with changed aggregate, events are written to event stream and command response is written to command response stream.
You would then have a downstream event processor that copies the events into Cassandra for easier querying etc. (and which can add the Kafka stream position to each event as it does it to give the category ordering). This can help with catch up subscriptions, etc. if you don't want to use Kafka for long term event storage. (To catch up, you'd just read as far as you can from Cassandra and then switch to streaming from Kafka from the position of the last Cassandra event). On the other hand, Kafka itself can store events for ever, so this isn't always necessary.
I hope this helps a bit with understanding the tradeoffs and problems you might encounter.
How to identify when the KTable materialization to a topic has completed?
For e.g. assume KTable has few million rows. Pseudo code below:
KTable<String, String> kt = kgroupedStream.groupByKey(..).reduce(..); //Assume this produces few million rows
At somepoint in time, I wanted to schedule a thread to invoke the following, that writes to the topic:
kt.toStream().to("output_topic_name");
I wanted to ensure all the data is written as part of the above invoke. Also, once the above "to" method is invoked, can it be invoked in the next schedule OR will the first invoke always stay active?
Follow-up Question:
Constraints
1) Ok, I see that the kstream and the ktable are unbounded/infinite once the kafkastream is kicked off. However, wouldn't ktable materialization (to a compacted topic) send multiple entries for the same key within a specified period.
So, unless the compaction process attempts to clean these and retain only the latest one, the downstream application will consume all available entries for the same key querying from the topic, causing duplicates. Even if the compaction process does some level of cleanup, it is always not possible that at a given point in time, there are some keys that have more than one entries as the compaction process is catching up.
I assume KTable will only have one record for a given key in the RocksDB. If we have a way to schedule the materialization, that will help to avoid the duplicates. Also, reduce the amount of data being persisted in topic (increasing the storage), increase in the network traffic, additional overhead to the compaction process to clean it up.
2) Perhaps a ReadOnlyKeyValueStore would allow a controlled retrieval from the store, but it still lacks the way to schedule the retrieval of key, value and write to a topic, which requires additional coding.
Can the API be improved to allow a controlled materialization?
A KTable materialization never finishes and you cannot "invoke" a to() either.
When you use the Streams API, you "plug together" a DAG of operators. The actual method calls, don't trigger any computation but modify the DAG of operators.
Only after you start the computation via KafkaStreams#start() data is processed. Note, that all operators that you specified will run continuously and concurrently after the computation gets started.
There is no "end of a computation" because the input is expected to be unbounded/infinite as upstream application can write new data into the input topics at any time. Thus, your program never terminates by itself. If required, you can stop the computation via KafkaStreams#close() though.
During execution, you cannot change the DAG. If you want to change it, you need to stop the computation and create a new KafkaStreams instance that takes the modified DAG as input
Follow up:
Yes. You have to think of a KTable as a "versioned table" that evolved over time when entries are updated. Thus, all updates are written to the changelog topic and sent downstream as change-records (note, that KTables do some caching, too, to "de-duplicate" consecutive updates to the same key: cf. https://docs.confluent.io/current/streams/developer-guide/memory-mgmt.html).
will consume all available entries for the same key querying from the topic, causing duplicates.
I would not consider those as "duplicates" but as updates. And yes, the application needs to be able to handle those updates correctly.
if we have a way to schedule the materialization, that will help to avoid the duplicates.
Materialization is a continuous process and the KTable is updated whenever new input records are available in the input topic and processed. Thus, at any point in time there might be an update for a specific key. Thus, even if you have full control when to send updates to the changelog topic and/or downstream, there might be a new update later on. That is the nature of stream processing.
Also, reduce the amount of data being persisted in topic (increasing the storage), increase in the network traffic, additional overhead to the compaction process to clean it up.
As mentioned above, caching is used to save resources.
Can the API be improved to allow a controlled materialization?
If the provided KTable semantics don't meet your requirement, you can always write a custom operator as a Processor or Transformer, attach a key-value store to it, and implement whatever you need.
Can I control the intervals at which the put() method of my Kafka Connect Sink tasks is triggered? What is the expected behavior of the Kafka Connect framework in this respect? Ideally, I would like to specify, for example, "don't call me unless you have X new records/Y new bytes, or Z milliseconds passed since the last invocation". This could potentially make the batching logic within the sink task simpler (quoting the documentation, "in many cases internal buffering will be useful so an entire batch of records can be sent at once, reducing the overhead of inserting events into the downstream data store).
Today, put from a SinkTask is only called when deliverMessages is invoked in a WorkerSinkTask. The good news is that the only time deliverMessages happens is within poll so you should have some control over how often you poll for new records by overriding consumer properties.
If you want to do internal buffering, you could have a look at how the HDFSConnector is handling this in its implementation of SinkTask. However, right now, Connect will immediately put any records that get returned by the poll.
All of that said, if you are really looking to batch messages before they hit the downstream system, you might consider looking into offset.flush.interval.ms and offset.flush.timeout.ms which control how often flush() is invoked.