Dynamic Tables

The following table compares traditional relational algebra and stream processing for input data, execution, and output results.

Despite these differences, relational queries and SQL provide a powerful toolset for processing streams. Advanced relational database systems offer a feature called Materialized Views. A materialized view is defined as a SQL query, just like a regular virtual view. In contrast to a virtual view, a materialized view caches the query result such that the query does not need to be evaluated when it is accessed. A common challenge for caching is to prevent a cache from serving outdated results. A materialized view becomes obsolete when the base tables of its definition query are modified. Eager View Maintenance is a technique to update a materialized view as soon as its base tables are updated.

The connection between eager view maintenance and SQL queries on streams becomes evident if we consider the following:

• A database table results from a stream of , UPDATE, and DELETE DML statements, often called changelog stream.
• A materialized view is defined as a SQL query. To update the view, queries must continuously process the changelog streams of the view’s base relations.
• The materialized view is the result of the streaming SQL query.

We introduce the following concept of Dynamic tables in the next section with these points in mind.

Dynamic tables are the core concept of Flink’s Table API and SQL support for streaming data. In contrast to the static tables that represent batch data, dynamic tables change over time. But just like static batch tables, systems can execute queries over dynamic tables. Querying dynamic tables yields a Continuous Query. A continuous query never terminates and produces dynamic results - another dynamic table. The query continuously updates its (dynamic) result table to reflect changes on its (dynamic) input tables. Essentially, a continuous query on a dynamic table is very similar to a query that defines a materialized view.

It is important to note that a continuous query output is always semantically equivalent to the result of the same query executed in batch mode on a snapshot of the input tables.

The following figure visualizes the relationship of streams, dynamic tables, and continuous queries:

1. A stream is converted into a dynamic table.
2. A continuous query is evaluated on the dynamic table yielding a new dynamic table.
3. The resulting dynamic table is converted back into a stream.

In the following, we will explain the concepts of dynamic tables and continuous queries with a stream of click events that have the following schema:

The following figure visualizes how the stream of click event (left-hand side) is converted into a table (right-hand side). The resulting table is continuously growing as more records of the click stream are inserted.

Remember, a table defined on a stream is internally not materialized.

A continuous query is evaluated on a dynamic table and produces a new dynamic table as a result. In contrast to a batch query, a continuous query never terminates and updates its result table according to its input tables’ updates. At any point in time, a continuous query is semantically equivalent to the result of the same query executed in batch mode on a snapshot of the input tables.

In the following, we show two example queries on a clicks table defined on the stream of click events.

The first query is a simple GROUP-BY COUNT aggregation query. It groups the clicks table on the user field and counts the number of visited URLs. The following figure shows how the query is evaluated over time as the clicks table is updated with additional rows.

When the query starts, the clicks table (left-hand side) is empty. The query computes the result table when the first row is inserted. After the first row [Mary, ./home] arrives, the result table (right-hand side, top) consists of a single row [Mary, 1]. When the second row [Bob, ./cart] is inserted into the clicks table, the query updates the result table and inserts a new row [Bob, 1]. The third row, [Mary, ./prod?id=1] yields an update of an already computed result row such that is updated to [Mary, 2]. Finally, the query inserts a third row [Liz, 1] into the result table, when the fourth row is appended to the clicks table.

The second query is similar to the first one but groups the clicks table in addition to the user attribute also on an hourly tumbling window before it counts the number of URLs (time-based computations such as windows are based on special are discussed later). Again, the figure shows the input and output at different points in time to visualize the changing nature of dynamic tables.

Although the two example queries appear to be quite similar (both compute a grouped count aggregate), they differ in one crucial aspect:

• The second query only appends to the result table, i.e., the result table’s changelog stream only consists of INSERT changes.

Whether a query produces an append-only table or an updated table has some implications:

• Queries that make update changes usually have to maintain more state (see the following section).
• The conversion of an append-only table into a stream is different from the conversion of an updated table (see the Table to Stream Conversion section).

Many, but not all, semantically valid queries can be evaluated as continuous queries on streams. Some queries are too expensive to compute, either due to the size of state they need to maintain or because computing updates is too expensive.

• State Size: Continuous queries are evaluated on unbounded streams and are often supposed to run for weeks or months. Hence, the total amount of data that a continuous query processes can be very large. Queries that have to update previously emitted results need to maintain all emitted rows to update them. For instance, the first example query needs to store the URL count for each user to increase the count and send out a new result when the input table receives a new row. If only registered users are tracked, the number of counts to maintain might not be too high. However, if non-registered users get a unique user name assigned, the number of counts to maintain would grow over time and might eventually cause the query to fail.

• Computing Updates: Some queries require to recompute and update a large fraction of the emitted result rows even if only a single input record is added or updated. Such queries are not well suited to be executed as continuous queries. An example is the following query that computes a for each user based on the time of the last click. As soon as the clicks table receives a new row, the user’s lastAction is updated and a new rank computed. However, since two rows cannot have the same rank, all lower ranked rows also need to be updated.

The page discusses parameters to control the execution of continuous queries. Some parameters can be used to trade the size of the maintained state for result accuracy.

A dynamic table can be continuously modified by INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE changes just like a regular database table. It might be a table with a single row, which is constantly updated, an insert-only table without UPDATE and DELETE modifications, or anything in between.

When converting a dynamic table into a stream or writing it to an external system, these changes need to be encoded. Flink’s Table API and SQL support three ways to encode the changes of a dynamic table:

• Append-only stream: A dynamic table that is only modified by INSERT changes can be converted into a stream by emitting the inserted rows.

• Upsert stream: An upsert stream is a stream with two types of messages, upsert messages and delete messages. A dynamic table that is converted into an upsert stream requires a (possibly composite) unique key. A dynamic table with a unique key is transformed into a stream by encoding INSERT and UPDATE changes as upsert messages and DELETE changes as delete messages. The stream consuming operator needs to be aware of the unique key attribute to apply messages correctly. The main difference to a retract stream is that UPDATE changes are encoded with a single message and hence more efficient. The following figure visualizes the conversion of a dynamic table into an upsert stream.