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.
Related
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
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.
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]
I have a spark application in which I need to get the data from executors to driver and I am using collect(). However, I also came across toLocalIterator(). As far as I have read about toLocalIterator() on Internet, it returns an iterator rather than sending whole RDD instantly, so it has better memory performance, but what about speed? How is the performance between collect() and toLocalIterator() when it comes to execution/computation time?
The answer to this question depends on what would you do after making df.collect() and df.rdd.toLocalIterator(). For example, if you are processing a considerably big file about 7M rows and for each of the records in there, after doing all the required transformations, you needed to iterate over each of the records in the DataFrame and make a service calls in batches of 100.
In the case of df.collect(), it will dumping the entire set of records to the driver, so the driver will need an enormous amount of memory. Where as in the case of toLocalIterator(), it will only return an iterator over a partition of the total records, hence the driver does not need to have enormous amount of memory. So if you are going to load such big files in parallel workflows inside the same cluster, df.collect() will cause you a lot of expense, where as toLocalIterator() will not and it will be faster and reliable as well.
On the other hand if you plan on doing some transformations after df.collect() or df.rdd.toLocalIterator(), then df.collect() will be faster.
Also if your file size is so small that Spark's default partitioning logic does not break it down into partitions at all then df.collect() will be more faster.
To quote from the documentation on toLocalIterator():
This results in multiple Spark jobs, and if the input RDD is the result of a wide transformation (e.g. join with different partitioners), to avoid recomputing the input RDD should be cached first.
It means that in the worst case scenario (no caching at all) it can be n-partitions times more expensive than collect. Even if data is cached, the overhead of starting multiple Spark jobs can be significant on large datasets. However lower memory footprint can partially compensate that, depending on a particular configuration.
Overall, both methods are inefficient and should be avoided on large datasets.
As for the toLocalIterator, it is used to collect the data from the RDD scattered around your cluster into one only node, the one from which the program is running, and do something with all the data in the same node. It is similar to the collect method, but instead of returning a List it will return an Iterator.
So, after applying a function to an RDD using foreach you can call toLocalIterator to get an iterator to all the contents of the RDD and process it. However, bear in mind that if your RDD is very big, you may have memory issues. If you want to transform it to an RDD again after doing the operations you need, use the SparkContext to parallelize it.
I have a Spark application that will need to make heavy use of unions whereby I'll be unioning lots of DataFrames together at different times, under different circumstances. I'm trying to make this run as efficiently as I can. I'm still pretty much brand-spanking-new to Spark, and something occurred to me:
If I have DataFrame 'A' (dfA) that has X number of partitions (numAPartitions), and I union that to DataFrame 'B' (dfB) which has Y number of partitions (numBPartitions), then what will the resultant unioned DataFrame (unionedDF) look like, with result to partitions?
// How many partitions will unionedDF have?
// X * Y ?
// Something else?
val unionedDF : DataFrame = dfA.unionAll(dfB)
To me, this seems like its very important to understand, seeing that Spark performance seems to rely heavily on the partitioning strategy employed by DataFrames. So if I'm unioning DataFrames left and right, I need to make sure I'm constantly managing the partitions of the resultant unioned DataFrames.
The only thing I can think of (so as to properly manage partitions of unioned DataFrames) would be to repartition them and then subsequently persist the DataFrames to memory/disk as soon as I union them:
val unionedDF : DataFrame = dfA.unionAll(dfB)
unionedDF.repartition(optimalNumberOfPartitions).persist(StorageLevel.MEMORY_AND_DISK)
This way, as soon as they are unioned, we repartition them so as to spread them over the available workers/executors properly, and then the persist(...) call tells to Spark to not evict the DataFrame from memory, so we can continue working on it.
The problem is, repartitioning sounds expensive, but it may not be as expensive as the alternative (not managing partitions at all). Are there generally-accepted guidelines about how to efficiently manage unions in Spark-land?
Yes, Partitions are important for spark.
I am wondering if you could find that out yourself by calling:
yourResultedRDD.getNumPartitions()
Do I have to persist, post union?
In general, you have to persist/cache an RDD (no matter if it is the result of a union, or a potato :) ), if you are going to use it multiple times. Doing so will prevent spark from fetching it again in memory and can increase the performance of your application by 15%, in some cases!
For example if you are going to use the resulted RDD just once, it would be safe not to do persist it.
Do I have to repartition?
Since you don't care about finding the number of partitions, you can read in my memoryOverhead issue in Spark
about how the number of partitions affects your application.
In general, the more partitions you have, the smaller the chunk of data every executor will process.
Recall that a worker can host multiple executors, you can think of it like the worker to be the machine/node of your cluster and the executor to be a process (executing in a core) that runs on that worker.
Isn't the Dataframe always in memory?
Not really. And that's something really lovely with spark, since when you handle bigdata you don't want unnecessary things to lie in the memory, since this will threaten the safety of your application.
A DataFrame can be stored in temporary files that spark creates for you, and is loaded in the memory of your application only when needed.
For more read: Should I always cache my RDD's and DataFrames?
Union just add up the number of partitions in dataframe 1 and dataframe 2. Both dataframe have same number of columns and same order to perform union operation. So no worries, if partition columns different in both the dataframes, there will be max m + n partitions.
You doesn't need to repartition your dataframe after join, my suggestion is to use coalesce in place of repartition, coalesce combine common partitions or merge some small partitions and avoid/reduce shuffling data within partitions.
If you cache/persist dataframe after each union, you will reduce performance and lineage is not break by cache/persist, in that case, garbage collection will clean cache/memory in case of some heavy memory intensive operation and recomputing will increase computation time for the same, may be this time partial computation is required for clear/removed data.
As spark transformation are lazy, i.e; unionAll is lazy operation and coalesce/repartition is also lazy operation and come in action at the time of first action, so try to coalesce unionall result after an interval like counter of 8 and reduce partition in resulting dataframe. Use checkpoints to break lineage and store data, if there is lots of memory intensive operation in your solution.