3 ms·
Great post, but one thing to note is that the number of partitions DOES NOT need to be equivalent to the number of consumers. A consumer can reasonably consume
by wcdolphin 11y ago
Great post, but one thing to note is that the number of partitions DOES NOT need to be equivalent to the number of consumers. A consumer can reasonably consume multiple partitions, as most do. On the other hand, it does provide an upper bound to the number of consumers in one group, as a consumer can only reasonably consume as few as one of the partitions.
- justifier 11y agoso do you drop the idea of partitions completely because you have shown its structure proves a soft, reasonable, upperbound? implying overworking what do you replace it with? what problem was 'use the same number of partitions as consumers' trying to fix?
- justifier 11y agoor if you keep it, how do you measure the optimal partition count?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]