Skip to content

Windowed Low Cardinality — exactly-once

Tumbling 30s event-time window grouped by region (16 fixed keys), with the per-region SLO rollup an operations dashboard computes — latency distribution, SLA breaches, errors, traffic volume, host saturation. 12 aggregates over 9 of the record's columns: the tiny key set keeps state trivial, so decoding and per-record compute, not the state store, bound the capacity. Capacity is read in drain mode, on a backlog carrying synthetic event time (every product meets the same windows); the live runs, at each product's max sustainable single-partition rate (its knee), give the close latency.

Last updated: 2026-11-10 · same-machine, relative comparison.

flowchart LR
  src[("bench-input<br/>1 partition")]
  s0{{"<b>key by</b><br/>16 keys (region)"}}
  s1[["<b>window</b><br/>tumbling 30 s, event time<br/>12 aggregates over 9 columns"]]
  sink[("bench-out")]
  state[("keyed state<br/>one open window per key")]
  probe>"latency probe<br/>arrival − window_end_ms"]
  src --> s0
  s0 --> s1
  s1 -->|"exactly-once"| sink
  s1 -.- state
  sink -.-> probe
Bench characteristics

In-process computation — Tumbling 30s event-time window on the Kafka message timestamp, 1 s grace, GROUP BY region (16 fixed keys) → count, avg / min / max / stddev_pop(latency_ms), count(latency_ms > 80) (the stateless SLA), sum(error_count), sum(request_size + response_size), avg(cpu_usage), max(memory_mb), max(queue_depth), sum(throughput); one pane per key per window close.

product delivery processing engine scaling on one partition decode state
turbine-eos exactly-once (Kafka transaction per batch; crash recovery: replay) batch (Arrow columnar; 100k rows / 500 ms) in-process · Rust core + free-threaded CPython 3.14t intra-partition shards (parallelism=N, hash of partition_key, in-process) schema projection (13 of 19 fields, Arrow) own RocksDB store (merge operator for windows)
arroyo-eos exactly-once (checkpoints every 10 s; Kafka transaction per checkpoint, 2PC sink) batch (vectorized SQL, Arrow / DataFusion; source batches of 100k rows / 500 ms) in-process · Rust (arroyo run: controller + one worker process) hash shuffle to N subtasks (arroyo run --parallelism, in-process queues) schema projection (9 of 19 fields) in-memory tables, checkpointed to the state dir
flink-eos exactly-once (EXACTLY_ONCE checkpoints every 10 s; Kafka transaction per checkpoint, 2PC sink) batch (pipelined, JVM code-gen SQL) in-process · JVM (local MiniCluster; Python only submits the job) keyed exchange to N slots (parallelism.default, in-process local channels; source stays 1 subtask) schema projection (10 of 19 fields, Jackson); connector-default fetch RocksDB (embedded, on-disk LSM)
quix-eos exactly-once (Kafka transaction per commit, every 5 s) row (per-record StreamingDataFrame) in-process · pure-Python over librdkafka (C client) none (one consumer per partition, GIL) full record (19 of 19 fields, orjson dict) RocksDB (embedded); changelog topic OFF for the bench

Input is a single Kafka partition (lz4). Each product may spread it over several cores through its own in-process mechanism (column scaling on one partition; what it actually used is cpu_avg); an in-process exchange is not a broker hop — the extra rec/rec column counts records that DID cross the broker on other topics. Every line runs exactly-once: its output becomes visible to a read_committed consumer at its transaction's commit (column delivery), windows are tumbling 30 s event-time on the Kafka message timestamp.

Consumer fetch: Turbine's core hard-codes librdkafka fetch.min.bytes=64 KB, fetch.wait.max.ms=10, max.partition.fetch.bytes=50 MB and a 500k-msg / ~2 GB prefetch queue (not adjustable), so the SAME client gets the SAME settings: quix and RisingWave (librdkafka) run with them, and so does FastStream (aiokafka, whose equivalent knobs lifted it ~14%). Flink runs at its Java connector's defaults: an A/B (2026-09-10) showed the identical numbers throttled the Java consumer (373k/s vs 543k/s at the same ~285k rows/s per core) — identical numbers are not identical behaviour on a different client. Memory at saturation is mostly this prefetch queue, for every librdkafka product.

Drain ceiling (--prefill: static backlog, no producer running)

product backlog event time/s warmup + window drained/s cpu_avg % rows/s per core rows/s per GB µs CPU / record panes/s run
turbine-eos 0.3.5a1 200M 430k 40 + 120 s 946,052 ████████ 256.2 369,282 ███████░ 469,403 ████████ 2.71 1.34 2026-11-10
arroyo-eos 0.15.0 200M 430k 40 + 240 s 526,283 ████░░░░ 117.3 448,531 ████████ 451,840 ████████ 2.23 0.91 2026-11-06
flink-eos 2.2.1 200M 430k 55 + 240 s 511,391 ████░░░░ 160.6 318,429 ██████░░ 334,235 ██████░░ 3.14 0.83 2026-11-06
quix-eos 3.23.6 160M 430k 268 + 516 s 51,565 █░░░░░░░ 101.5 50,818 █░░░░░░░ 70,418 █░░░░░░░ 19.68 0.07 2026-11-07
How to read this table

gendata wrote the backlog and exited BEFORE the consumer started, so the window measures a drain with no producer competing for the box — the product's consume ceiling free of gendata's CPU and 10 Hz burstiness. Not comparable with a live table (different regime); ⚠ exhausted = the backlog ran out mid-window, rate understated.

The backlog's records carry synthetic event time, event time/s records per second of it (gendata --event-time-rate): it stands for a live stream at that rate, so every product meets the SAME windows — the same records and keys per window, which live runs at each product's own knee do not — and drained/s is its capacity on that problem, closes included. Event time runs at drained ÷ event-time rate × the wall clock, panes/s with it. A product draining far below the event-time rate gets a longer warmup and window (≥ its first close, then two more, at its live knee's pace: warmup + window). No latency here: a pane's age is the backlog's. 0 ⚠ panes/s: no pane was published during the window — the drain did not run the whole pipeline, its drained/s is not comparable.

Throughput / efficiency (live, at each product's knee) — capped by the machine: gendata produces ~430k/s at most, so read capacity in the drain table
product offered/s consumed/s regime (lag drift) cpu_avg % rows/s per core rows/s per GB µs CPU / record panes/s extra rec/rec run
turbine-eos 0.3.5a1 418,594 418,284 ████████ keep-up (+0.1%) 120.4 347,272 ███████░ 352,106 █████░░░ 2.88 0.59 0 2026-11-10
arroyo-eos 0.15.0 422,205 410,740 ████████ keep-up (+2.8%) 100.7 407,908 ████████ 536,883 ████████ 2.45 0.73 0 2026-11-06
flink-eos 2.2.1 424,185 422,110 ████████ keep-up (+0.5%) 137.5 307,061 ██████░░ 260,734 ████░░░░ 3.26 0.73 0 2026-11-06
quix-eos 3.23.6 49,445 49,247 █░░░░░░░ keep-up (+0.4%) 99.8 49,346 █░░░░░░░ 463,096 ███████░ 20.27 0.60 0.00 2026-11-06
How to read this table

consumed/s is what the product actually drained (its consumer-group offset or engine counter), offered/s what gendata produced; a dotted underline marks the median of a repeated batch — hover it for the run count and the min – max. regime (lag drift): keep-up = consumed ≈ offered with a flat backlog (a sustainable point); saturated = fed beyond capacity, so consumed/s IS the ceiling and latency is unbounded; draining = still eating warmup backlog (consumed > offered; CPU is catch-up, not steady state — lengthen the warmup, or raise the rate if the ceiling is what you want). The lag drift in parentheses = backlog change over the window ÷ records consumed — the evidence for the regime (≈ 0 at keep-up, positive when saturated, negative while draining). cpu_avg is the whole process tree, 100 = one core busy. rows/s per core = consumed ÷ (cpu_avg/100); rows/s per GB = consumed ÷ memory; extra rec/rec = records written to topics other than the input and output per record consumed (0 = no broker hop).

panes/s is the window-emission cadence (≈ keys ÷ window size), a liveness signal, not a throughput figure — it only moves when windows close, which needs the consumer to keep up.

Cost of exactly-once

line vs regime rows/s per core µs CPU / record consumed/s close p50 ms measured
turbine-eos · drain turbine drain → drain +0.8% 2.73 → 2.71 +1.8% - interleaved
turbine-eos turbine keep-up → keep-up -0.1% 2.88 → 2.88 - 1,336 → 1,386 interleaved
arroyo-eos · drain arroyo drain → drain +1.3% 2.26 → 2.23 -6.7% - separately
arroyo-eos arroyo keep-up → keep-up -2.4% 2.39 → 2.45 - 1,971 → 6,724 separately
flink-eos · drain flink drain → drain +1.8% 3.20 → 3.14 +0.8% - separately
flink-eos flink keep-up → keep-up +2.6% 3.34 → 3.26 - 1,311 → 4,435 separately
quix-eos · drain quix drain → drain +1.4% 19.96 → 19.68 +1.5% - separately
quix-eos quix keep-up → keep-up +0.2% 20.32 → 20.27 - 1,112 → 1,935 separately
How to read this table

Each exactly-once line against its at-least-once line — the same product, workload, mode and cores, the newest batch of each. rows/s per core: the change in efficiency (the inverse of µs CPU per record, shown at-least-once → exactly-once); consumed/s: the change in capacity, only when both runs were fed beyond it (drain or saturated — at a keep-up point it is the offered rate); the latency p50 when both kept up — an exactly-once line's output becomes visible to the probe, a read_committed consumer, at its commit (a batch's transaction for Turbine, a checkpoint's for Flink and Arroyo, a commit's for Quix: the interval is in the characteristics' delivery and processing columns — on the latency bench every exactly-once line commits at Turbine's batch timeout, a transaction per batch, the others through BENCH_COMMIT_INTERVAL_MS (Arroyo every 1 s, the shortest checkpoint interval it accepts), which their at-least-once lines, publishing without waiting for a commit, do not set: ≠ config there). measured: interleaved = both lines in one interleaved batch (one host, run by run); separately = two sessions, the difference then carrying the host-to-host spread too (a few %; a Flink VM once read 30 % slower, before the session gate). · ≠ config / ≠ host / ≠ bench: the two runs differ there too — read the figures with it. Output records/s read from offsets include one transaction marker per transaction that wrote to the output — noise on the per-record workloads (≲ 1 per 10k records), up to ~1 in 16 panes on windowed-lowcard's 0.53 panes/s.

Latency (close latency — pane published minus window end)

product regime p50 ms p90 ms p99 ms p99.9 ms max ms records setup floor p50 / p99 ms added p50 / p99 ms
turbine-eos 0.3.5a1 keep-up 1,386.4 1,437.3 1,437.3 1,437.3 1,437.3 192 106.3 / 204.7 1,280.0 / 1,232.6
arroyo-eos 0.15.0 keep-up 6,724.2 11,205.9 11,205.9 11,205.9 11,205.9 384 106.1 / 204.5 6,618.2 / 11,001.4
flink-eos 2.2.1 keep-up 4,434.9 4,484.6 4,484.6 4,484.6 4,484.6 384 106.0 / 204.5 4,328.9 / 4,280.1
quix-eos 3.23.6 keep-up 1,934.9 1,946.9 1,946.9 1,946.9 1,946.9 192 106.4 / 204.6 1,828.5 / 1,742.4
How to read this table

Measured by a probe consumer tailing the output topic (C client, 10 ms max fetch wait — the probe adds ≲10 ms, the same for every product). Only shown for keep-up runs: under saturation the figure is the backlog's age and grows without bound. setup floor is a harness producer writing one small record every 10 ms (acks=all, 5 ms linger) to its own topic during the same run, measured by the same probe: the broker's produce→visible latency at the products' output shape (on Redpanda, small produces surface on its flush cadence), which every product inherits. added = product − floor, the part the product is responsible for (fetch, batching, commit/epoch cadence, produce). The floor is a low-volume topic's (100 small records/s, surfacing on Redpanda's 100 ms flush.ms): an output topic carrying several MB/s — every record scored and republished — surfaces sooner: a percentile under the floor's reads below, added does not apply. Colours: each percentile against the best (lowest) of its column — green under 2×, yellow from 2×, orange from 5×, red from 10× (the ratio on hover).

Resources (raw)

product cpu_avg % cpu_p95 % mem_avg MB mem_max MB samples instrument
turbine-eos 0.3.5a1 256.2 267.5 2,063.8 2,335.9 117 /proc Δ, pss
turbine-eos 0.3.5a1 120.4 132.1 1,216.5 1,311.2 118 /proc Δ, pss
arroyo-eos 0.15.0 117.3 137.0 1,192.7 1,370.9 235 /proc Δ, pss
arroyo-eos 0.15.0 100.7 109.6 783.4 835.3 235 /proc Δ, pss
flink-eos 2.2.1 160.6 168.3 1,566.8 1,617.7 235 /proc Δ, pss
flink-eos 2.2.1 137.5 145.6 1,657.8 1,665.2 235 /proc Δ, pss
quix-eos 3.23.6 101.5 108.1 749.8 774.6 507 /proc Δ, pss
quix-eos 3.23.6 99.8 103.3 108.9 115.7 119 /proc Δ, pss
How to read this table

CPU is summed over the whole process tree (JVM, UDF servers, the RisingWave container's processes) as utime+stime deltas per 1 s sample — 100 = one core. Memory is PSS (shared pages counted once) where readable, RSS otherwise (instrument). Rows marked ⚠ legacy ps were measured with the old ps %CPU lifetime average and are not comparable: re-run them.

Sanity — ✓ matches theory

Are we benching the same thing?

product panes/s expected sample
turbine-eos 0.3.5a1 · drain 1.34 1.13 192
turbine-eos 0.3.5a1 0.59 0.53 96
arroyo-eos 0.15.0 · drain 0.91 0.65 192
arroyo-eos 0.15.0 0.73 0.53 144
flink-eos 2.2.1 · drain 0.83 0.63 176
flink-eos 2.2.1 0.73 0.53 144
quix-eos 3.23.6 · drain 0.07 0.06 48
quix-eos 3.23.6 0.60 0.53 96

Aggregated output: checked against the expected pane cadence (expected.output_rate in bench.yaml; × drained ÷ event-time rate for a windowed drain), not per-record selectivity.

Verdict: ✓ matches theory — panes/s within 2× of the expected cadence for every row.

Turbine releases

line version bench regime offered/s consumed/s rows/s per core µs CPU / record rows/s per GB p99 ms Δ efficiency Δ capacity run
turbine-eos 0.3.5a1 2 keep-up 418,594 418,284 347,272 2.88 352,106 1,437.3 +0.9% - 2026-11-10
turbine-eos 0.3.4a1 2 keep-up 417,191 416,630 344,262 2.90 348,617 1,377.8 - - 2026-11-10
turbine-eos · drain 0.3.5a1 2 drain — 946,052 369,282 2.71 469,403 - +1.9% +1.7% 2026-11-10
turbine-eos · drain 0.3.4a1 2 drain — 930,087 362,542 2.76 442,523 - - - 2026-11-10
How to read this table

The Turbine lines measured on several releases, newest first: a regression check, not part of the cross-product comparison above (which shows the pinned release only). Δ compares each release with the one below it: efficiency = rows/s per core (the inverse of µs CPU per record), capacity = consumed/s, only when both runs were fed beyond capacity (saturated or drain — at a keep-up point consumed/s is just the offered rate). ⚠ = worse by more than 5%, about the single-run noise: confirm with --repeat 3. Two releases measured in two sessions also differ by the host-to-host spread — same flavor, another physical host: −0.7 % consumed / −3.5 % rows/s per core in the c3 control of 2026-10-07 —, which leaves little headroom under the 5 %: re-measure both releases in ONE session (suite.py run … --version X) before acting on a ⚠. No delta is computed across a change of bench version (bench, from bench.yaml), host or run config; ⚠ deprecated rows were measured on an older bench definition — re-run that release with suite.py run turbine WORKLOAD --version X.

Host: ovh:c3-32 (ovh:c3-32@SBG5, ovh:c3-32@UK1) · AMD EPYC-Milan Processor (2400 MHz) · 16 cores / 16 threads · 31345 MB · kernel 6.12.100+deb13-cloud-amd64.

Redpanda: rpk version: v26.2.2. Redpanda, gendata and the product under test share this host.