I am trying to understand spark partitions and in a blog I come across this passage
However, you should understand that you can drastically reduce the parallelism of your data processing — coalesce is often pushed up further in the chain of transformation and can lead to fewer nodes for your processing than you would like. To avoid this, you can pass shuffle = true. This will add a shuffle step, but it also means that the reshuffled partitions will be using full cluster resources if possible.
I understand that coalesce means to take the data on some of the least data containing executors and shuffle them to already existing executors via a hash partitioner. I am not able to understand what the author is trying to say in this para though. Can somebody please explain to me what is being said in this paragraph?
Coalesce has some not so obvious effects due to Spark
Catalyst.
E.g.
Let’s say you had a parallelism of 1000, but you only wanted to write
10 files at the end. You might think you could do:
load().map(…).filter(…).coalesce(10).save()
However, Spark’s will effectively push down the coalesce operation to
as early a point as possible, so this will execute as:
load().coalesce(10).map(…).filter(…).save()
You can read in detail here an excellent article, that I quote from, that I chanced upon some time ago: https://medium.com/airbnb-engineering/on-spark-hive-and-small-files-an-in-depth-look-at-spark-partitioning-strategies-a9a364f908
In summary: Catalyst treatment of coalesce can reduce concurrency early in the pipeline. This I think is what is being alluded to, though of course each case is different and JOIN and aggregating are not subject to such effects in general due to 200 default partitioning that applies for such Spark operations.
As what you have said in your question "coalesce means to take the data on some of the least data containing executors and shuffle them to already existing executors via a hash practitioner". This effectively means the following
The number of partitions have reduced
The main difference between repartition and coalesce is that in coalesce the movement of the data across the partitions is fewer than in repartition thus reducing the level of shuffle thus being more efficient.
Adding the property shuffle=true is just to distribute the data evenly across the nodes which is the same as using repartition(). You can use shuffle=true if you feel that your data might get skewed in the nodes after performing coalesce.
Hope this answers your question
Related
Recently I got a requirement to perform combination joins.
I have to perform around 30 to 36 joins in Spark.
It was consuming more time to build the execution plan. So I cached the execution plan in intermediate stages using df.localCheckpoint().
Is this a good way to do? Any thoughts, please share.
Yes, it is fine.
This is mostly discussed for iterative ML algorithms, but can be equally applied for a Spark App with many steps - e.g. joins.
Quoting from https://medium.com/#adrianchang/apache-spark-checkpointing-ebd2ec065371:
Spark programs take a huge performance hit when fault tolerance occurs
as the entire set of transformations to a DataFrame or RDD have to be
recomputed when fault tolerance occurs or for each additional
transformation that is applied on top of an RDD or DataFrame.
localCheckpoint() is not "reliable".
Caching is definitely a strategy to optimize your performance. In general, given that your data size and resource of your spark application remains unchanged, there are three points that need to be considered when you want to optimize your joining operation:
Data skewness: In most of the time, when I'm trying to find out the reason why the joining takes a lot of time, data skewness is always be one of the reasons. In fact, not only the joining operation, any transformation need a even data distribution so that you won't have a skewed partition that have lots of data and wait the single task in single partition. Make sure your data are well distributed.
Data broadcasting: When we do the joining operation, data shuffling is inevitable. In some case, we use a relatively small dataframe as a reference to filter the data in a very big dataframe. In this case, it's a very expensive operation to shuffle the dataframe. Instead, we can use the dataframe broadcasting to broadcast your small dataframe to every single node and prevent the costly shuffling.
Keep your joining data as lean as possible: like what I mentioned in point 2, data shuffling is inevitable when you do the joining operation. Therefore, please keep your dataframe as lean as possible, which means remove the rows / columns if it's unnecessary to reduce the size of data that need to be moved across the network during the data shuffling.
In our project, we are using repartition(1) to write data into table, I am interested to know why coalesce(1) cannot be used here because repartition is a costly operation compared to coalesce.
I know repartition distributes data evenly across partitions, but when the output file is of single part file, why can't we use coalesce(1)?
coalesce has an issue where if you're calling it using a number smaller than your current number of executors, the number of executors used to process that step will be limited by the number you passed in to the coalesce function.
The repartition function avoids this issue by shuffling the data. In any scenario where you're reducing the data down to a single partition (or really, less than half your number of executors), you should almost always use repartition over coalesce because of this. The shuffle caused by repartition is a small price to pay compared to the single-threaded operation of a call to coalesce(1)
You state nothing else in terms of logic.
coalesce will use existing partitions to minimize shuffling. In case of coalsece(1) and counterpart may be not a big deal, but one can take this guiding principle that repartition creates new partitions and hence does a full shuffle. That said, coalsece can be said to minimize the amount of shuffling.
In my spare time I chanced upon this https://medium.com/airbnb-engineering/on-spark-hive-and-small-files-an-in-depth-look-at-spark-partitioning-strategies-a9a364f908 excellent article. Look for the quote: Coalesce sounds useful in some cases, but has some problems.
I have been reading on map-side reduce/aggregation and there is one thing I can't seem to understand clearly. Does it happen per partition only or is it broader in scope? I mean does it also reduce across partitions if the same key appears in multiple partitions processed by the same Executor?
Now I have a few more questions depending on whether the answer is "per partition only" or not.
Assuming it's per partition:
What are good ways to deal with a situation where I know my dataset lends itself well to reducing further across local partitions before a shuffle. E.g. I process 10 partitions per Executor and I know they all include many overlapping keys, so it could potentially be reduced to just 1/10th. Basically I'm looking for a local reduce() (like so many). Coalesce()ing them comes to mind, any common methods to deal with this?
Assuming it reduces across partitions:
Does it happen per Executor? How about Executors assigned to the same Worker node, do they have the ability to reduce across each others partitions recognizing that they are co-located?
Does it happen per core (Thread) within the Executor? The reason I'm asking this is because some of the diagrams I looked at seem to show a Mapper per core/Thread of the executor, it looks like results of all tasks coming out of that core goes to a single Mapper instance. (which does the shuffle writes if I am not mistaken)
Is it deterministic? E.g. if I have a record, let's say A=1 in 10 partitions processed by the same Executor, can I expect to see A=10 for the task reading the shuffle output? Or is it best-effort, e.g. it still reduces but there are some constraints (buffer size etc.) so the shuffle read may encounter A=4 and A=6.
Map side aggregation is similar to Hadoop combiner approach. Reduce locally makes sense to Spark as well and means less shuffling. So it works per partition - as you state.
When applying reducing functionality, e.g. a groupBy & sum, then shuffling occurs initially so that keys are in same partition, so that the above can occur (with dataframes automatically). But a simple count, say, will also reduce locally and then the overall count will be computed by taking the intermediate results back to the driver.
So, results are combined on the Driver from Executors - depending on what is actually requested, e.g. collect, print of a count. But if writing out after aggregation of some nature, then the reducing is limited to the Executor on a Worker.
Background
I am a newbie in Spark and want to understand about shuffling in spark.
I have two following questions about shuffling in Apache Spark.
1) Why there is change in no. of partitions before performing shuffling ? Spark does it by default by changing partition count to value given in spark.sql.shuffle.partitions.
2) Shuffling usually happens when there is a wide transformation. I have read in a book that data is also saved on disk. Is my understanding correct ?
Two questions actually.
Nowhere it it stated that you need to change this parameter. 200 is the default if not set. It applies to JOINing and AGGregating. You make have a far bigger set of data that is better served by increasing the number of partitions for more processing capacity - if more Executors are available. 200 is the default, but if your quantity is huge, more parallelism if possible will speed up processing time - in general.
Assuming an Action has been called - so as to avoid the obvious comment if this is not stated, assuming we are not talking about ResultStage and a broadcast join, then we are talking about ShuffleMapStage. We look at an RDD initially:
DAG dependency involving a shuffle means creation of a separate Stage.
Map operations are followed by Reduce operations and a Map and so forth.
CURRENT STAGE
All the (fused) Map operations are performed intra-Stage.
The next Stage requirement, a Reduce operation - e.g. a reduceByKey, means the output is hashed or sorted by key (K) at end of the Map
operations of current Stage.
This grouped data is written to disk on the Worker where the Executor is - or storage tied to that Cloud version. (I would have
thought in memory was possible, if data is small, but this is an architectural Spark
approach as stated from the docs.)
The ShuffleManager is notified that hashed, mapped data is available for consumption by the next Stage. ShuffleManager keeps track of all
keys/locations once all of the map side work is done.
NEXT STAGE
The next Stage, being a reduce, then gets the data from those locations by consulting the Shuffle Manager and using Block Manager.
The Executor may be re-used or be a new on another Worker, or another Executor on same Worker.
Stages mean writing to disk, even if enough memory present. Given finite resources of a Worker it makes sense that writing to disk occurs for this type of operation. The more important point is, of course, the 'Map Reduce' style of implementation.
Of course, fault tolerance is aided by this persistence, less re-computation work.
Similar aspects apply to DFs.
According so many good resources, it is advisable to re-partition a RDD after filter operation. since, there is a possibility that most of the partitions are now empty.
I have a doubt that in case of Data Frames has this been handled in current versions or do we still need to repartition it after a filter operation?
I have a doubt that in case of Data Frames has this been handled in current versions or do we still need to repartition it after a filter operation?
If you ask if Spark automatically repartitions data the answer is negative (and I hope it won't change in the future)
According so many good resources, it is advisable to re-partition a RDD after filter operation. since, there is a possibility that most of the partitions are now empty.
This really depends on two factors:
How selective is the filter (what is the expected fraction of the records preserved).
What is the distribution of data, in respect to predicate, prior to filter.
Unless you expect that predicate prunes majority of data or prior distribution will leave significant fraction of partitions empty, costs of repartitioning usually outweigh potential benefits, so the main reason to call repartition is to limit the number of the output files.
Spark does not automatically repartition data. It would be a good idea to repartition the data after filtering if you need to do operations such as join and aggregate. Based on your needs you should either use repartition or coalesce. Typically coalesce is preferable since it tries to group data together without shuffling, therefore it only decreases the # of partitions. (good link for understanding coalesce and repartition)
There aren't huge performance boost if you don't do any heavy computation after your filtering operation. Keep in mind that repartition by itself could also be expensive. You must know your data to make that decision
I am assuming that this is your question.
Shall I run a filter operation before repartition or after repartition?
Based on this assumption, a filter will always try to find records matching some conditions. So, the resultant data frame/RDD is always either less than or equal to the previous data frame/RDD. In most cases, the resultant set is less than the previous one.
Whereas repartition is one of the most expensive operations because it does a shuffle. Always remember whenever we are performing a repartition the less the data is in memory the better the performance we can get out of it.
I don't even have to talk more about how Spark handles it etc, in
general filter before repartition is good for performance!
For example, catalyst optimizer itself uses before and after filter to improve performance.
Blog Link:
For example, Spark knows how and when to do things like combine
filters, or move filters before joins. Spark 2.0 even allows you to
define, add, and test out your own additional optimization rules at
runtime. 1[2]