Spark function aliases - performant udfs - apache-spark

Context
In many of the sql queries I write, I find myself combining spark predefined functions in the exact same way, which often results in verbose and duplicated code, and my developer instinct is to want to refactor it.
So, my question is this : is there some way to define some kind of alias for function combinations without resorting to udfs (which are to avoid for perofmance reasons) - the goal being to make the code clearer and cleaner. Essentially, what I want is something like udfs but without the performance penalty. Also, these function MUST be callable from within a spark-sql query usable in spark.sql calls.
Example
For example, let's say my business logic is to reverse some string and hash it like this : (please note that the function combination here is irrelevant, what is important is that it is some combination of existing pre-defined spark functions - possibly many of them)
SELECT
sha1(reverse(person.name)),
sha1(reverse(person.some_information)),
sha1(reverse(person.some_other_information))
...
FROM person
Is there a way of declaring a business function without paying the performance price of using a udf, allowing the code just above to be rewritten as :
SELECT
business(person.name),
business(person.some_information),
business(person.some_other_information)
...
FROM person
I have searched around quite a bit on the spark documentation and on this website and have not found a way of achieving this, which is pretty weird to me because it looks like a pretty natural need, and I don't understand why you should necessarly pay the black-box price of defining and calling a udf.

Is there a way of declaring a business function without paying the performance price of using a udf
You don't have to use udf, you might extend Expression class, or for the simplest operations - UnaryExpression. Then you will have to implement just several methods and here we go. It is natively integrated into Spark, besides that letting use some advantage features such as code generation.
In your case adding business function is pretty straightforward:
def business(column: Column): Column = {
sha1(reverse(column))
}
MUST be callable from within a spark-sql query usable in spark.sql calls
This is more tricky but achievable.
You need to create custom functions registrar:
import org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.FunctionIdentifier
import org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.expressions.Expression
object FunctionAliasRegistrar {
val funcs: mutable.Map[String, Seq[Column] => Column] = mutable.Map.empty
def add(name: String, builder: Seq[Column] => Column): this.type = {
funcs += name -> builder
this
}
def registerAll(spark: SparkSession) = {
funcs.foreach { case (alias, builder) => {
def b(children: Seq[Expression]) = builder.apply(children.map(expr => new Column(expr))).expr
spark.sessionState.functionRegistry.registerFunction(FunctionIdentifier(alias), b)
}}
}
}
Then you can use it as follows:
FunctionAliasRegistrar
.add("business1", child => lower(reverse(child.head)))
.add("business2", child => upper(reverse(child.head)))
.registerAll(spark)
dataset.createTempView("data")
spark.sql(
"""
| SELECT business1(name), business2(name) FROM data
|""".stripMargin)
.show(false)
Output:
+--------------------+--------------------+
|lower(reverse(name))|upper(reverse(name))|
+--------------------+--------------------+
|sined |SINED |
|taram |TARAM |
|1taram |1TARAM |
|2taram |2TARAM |
+--------------------+--------------------+
Hope this helps.

Related

Order of evaluation of predicates in Spark SQL where clause

I am trying to understand the order of predicate evaluation in Spark SQL in order to increase performance of a query.
Let's say I have the following query
"select * from tbl where pred1 and pred2"
and lets say that none of the predicates qualify as pushdown filters (for simplification).
Also lets assume that pred1 is computationally much more complex than pred2 (assume regex pattern matching vs negation).
Is there any way to verify that spark will evaluate pred2 before
pred1?
Is this deterministic?
Is this controllable?
Is there any way to see the final execution plan?
General
Good question.
Inferred answer via testing a scenario and making deductions as could not find the suitable docs. 2nd attempt due to all sorts of statements on the web not able to be backed up.
This question I think is not about AQE Spark 3.x aspects, but it is
about say, a dataframe as part of Stage N of a Spark App that has
passed the stage of acquiring data from sources at rest, which is
subject to filtering with multiple predicates being applied.
Then the central point is does it matter how the predicates are
ordered or does Spark (Catalyst) re-order the predicates to minimize
the work to be done?
The premise here is that filtering the maximum amount of data out first makes more sense than evaluating a predicate that filters very
little out.
This is a well-known RDBMS point referring to sargable predicates (subject to evolution of definition over time).
A lot of the discussion focused on indexes, Spark, Hive do not have this, but DF's are columnar.
Point 1
You can try for %sql
EXPLAIN EXTENDED select k, sum(v) from values (1, 2), (1, 3) t(k, v) group by k;
From this you can see what's going on if there is re-arranging of
predicates, but I saw no such aspects in the Physical Plan in non-AQE
mode on Databricks. Refer to
https://docs.databricks.com/sql/language-manual/sql-ref-syntax-qry-explain.html.
Catalyst can re-arrange filtering I read here and there. To what
extent, is a lot of research; I was not able to confirm this.
Also an interesting read:
https://www.waitingforcode.com/apache-spark-sql/catalyst-optimizer-in-spark-sql/read
Point 2
I ran the following pathetic contrived examples with the same
functional query but with predicates reversed, using a column that has
high cardinality and tested for a value that does not in fact exist
and then compared the count of the accumulator used in an UDF when called.
Scenario 1
import org.apache.spark.sql.functions._
def randomInt1to1000000000 = scala.util.Random.nextInt(1000000000)+1
def randomInt1to10 = scala.util.Random.nextInt(10)+1
def randomInt1to1000000 = scala.util.Random.nextInt(1000000)+1
val df = sc.parallelize(Seq.fill(1000000){(randomInt1to1000000,randomInt1to1000000000,randomInt1to10)}).toDF("nuid","hc", "lc").withColumn("text", lpad($"nuid", 3, "0")).withColumn("literal",lit(1))
val accumulator = sc.longAccumulator("udf_call_count")
spark.udf.register("myUdf", (x: String) => {accumulator.add(1)
x.length}
)
accumulator.reset()
df.where("myUdf(text) = 3 and hc = -4").select(max($"text")).show(false)
println(s"Number of UDF calls ${accumulator.value}")
returns:
+---------+
|max(text)|
+---------+
|null |
+---------+
Number of UDF calls 1000000
Scenario 2
import org.apache.spark.sql.functions._
def randomInt1to1000000000 = scala.util.Random.nextInt(1000000000)+1
def randomInt1to10 = scala.util.Random.nextInt(10)+1
def randomInt1to1000000 = scala.util.Random.nextInt(1000000)+1
val dfA = sc.parallelize(Seq.fill(1000000){(randomInt1to1000000,randomInt1to1000000000,randomInt1to10)}).toDF("nuid","hc", "lc").withColumn("text", lpad($"nuid", 3, "0")).withColumn("literal",lit(1))
val accumulator = sc.longAccumulator("udf_call_count")
spark.udf.register("myUdf", (x: String) => {accumulator.add(1)
x.length}
)
accumulator.reset()
dfA.where("hc = -4 and myUdf(text) = 3").select(max($"text")).show(false)
println(s"Number of UDF calls ${accumulator.value}")
returns:
+---------+
|max(text)|
+---------+
|null |
+---------+
Number of UDF calls 0
My conclusion here is that:
There is left to right evaluation - in this case - as there are 0 calls for the udf as the accumulator value is 0 for scenario 2, as opposed to scenario 1 with 1M calls registered.
So, the order of predicate processing as say ORACLE and DB2 may do for Stage 1 predicates does not apply.
Point 3
I note from the manual however
https://docs.databricks.com/spark/latest/spark-sql/udf-scala.html the
following:
Evaluation order and null checking
Spark SQL (including SQL and the DataFrame and Dataset APIs) does not
guarantee the order of evaluation of subexpressions. In particular,
the inputs of an operator or function are not necessarily evaluated
left-to-right or in any other fixed order. For example, logical AND
and OR expressions do not have left-to-right “short-circuiting”
semantics.
Therefore, it is dangerous to rely on the side effects or order of
evaluation of Boolean expressions, and the order of WHERE and HAVING
clauses, since such expressions and clauses can be reordered during
query optimization and planning. Specifically, if a UDF relies on
short-circuiting semantics in SQL for null checking, there’s no
guarantee that the null check will happen before invoking the UDF. For
example,
spark.udf.register("strlen", (s: String) => s.length)
spark.sql("select s from test1 where s is not null and strlen(s) > 1") // no guarantee
This WHERE clause does not guarantee the strlen UDF to be invoked
after filtering out nulls.
To perform proper null checking, we recommend that you do either of
the following:
Make the UDF itself null-aware and do null checking inside the UDF
itself Use IF or CASE WHEN expressions to do the null check and invoke
the UDF in a conditional branch.
spark.udf.register("strlen_nullsafe", (s: String) => if (s != null) s.length else -1)
spark.sql("select s from test1 where s is not null and strlen_nullsafe(s) > 1") // ok
spark.sql("select s from test1 where if(s is not null, strlen(s), null) > 1") // ok
Slight contradiction.

Java Spark Dataset retrieve cell value

My Dataset looks like below, i want to fetch the 1st row,1st column value (A1 in this case)
+-------+---+--------------+----------+
|account|ccy|count(account)|sum_amount|
+-------+---+--------------+----------+
| A1|USD| 2| 500.24|
| A2|SGD| 1| 200.24|
| A2|USD| 1| 300.36|
+-------+---+--------------+----------+
I can do this as below :
Dataset finalDS = dataset.groupBy("account", "ccy").
agg(count("account"), sum("amount").alias("sum_amount"))
.orderBy("account", "ccy");
Object[] items = (Object[])(finalDS.filter(functions.col("sum_amount")
.equalTo(300.36))
.collect());
String accountNo = (String)((GenericRowWithSchema)items[0]).get(0);
2 questions :
Any other/more efficient way to do this ? I am aware of Dataframe/JavaRDD queries
Without the explicit cast Object[], there is a compile time failure, however I would have thought that this is an implicit cast. Why ? I suspect something to do with scala compilation.
Any other/more efficient way to do this ? I am aware of Dataframe/JavaRDD queries
You'd better use Dataset.head (javadocs) function in order to eliminate passing all the data to driver process. This will limit you to loading only 1st row to driver RAM instead of the entire dataset. You also can consider using take function to obtain first N rows.
Without the explicit cast Object[], there is a compile time failure, however I would have thought that this is an implicit cast. Why ? I suspect something to do with scala compilation.
It depends on how your dataset is typed. In case of Datarame (which is Dataset[Row], proof), you'll get an Array[Row] on call to collect. It's worth to mention the signature of collect functions:
def collect(): Array[T] = withAction("collect", queryExecution)(collectFromPlan)

Spark: Use aggregation function on all columns [duplicate]

The question is pretty much in the title: Is there an efficient way to count the distinct values in every column in a DataFrame?
The describe method provides only the count but not the distinct count, and I wonder if there is a a way to get the distinct count for all (or some selected) columns.
In pySpark you could do something like this, using countDistinct():
from pyspark.sql.functions import col, countDistinct
df.agg(*(countDistinct(col(c)).alias(c) for c in df.columns))
Similarly in Scala :
import org.apache.spark.sql.functions.countDistinct
import org.apache.spark.sql.functions.col
df.select(df.columns.map(c => countDistinct(col(c)).alias(c)): _*)
If you want to speed things up at the potential loss of accuracy, you could also use approxCountDistinct().
Multiple aggregations would be quite expensive to compute. I suggest that you use approximation methods instead. In this case, approxating distinct count:
val df = Seq((1,3,4),(1,2,3),(2,3,4),(2,3,5)).toDF("col1","col2","col3")
val exprs = df.columns.map((_ -> "approx_count_distinct")).toMap
df.agg(exprs).show()
// +---------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
// |approx_count_distinct(col1)|approx_count_distinct(col2)|approx_count_distinct(col3)|
// +---------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
// | 2| 2| 3|
// +---------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
The approx_count_distinct method relies on HyperLogLog under the hood.
The HyperLogLog algorithm and its variant HyperLogLog++ (implemented in Spark) relies on the following clever observation.
If the numbers are spread uniformly across a range, then the count of distinct elements can be approximated from the largest number of leading zeros in the binary representation of the numbers.
For example, if we observe a number whose digits in binary form are of the form 0…(k times)…01…1, then we can estimate that there are in the order of 2^k elements in the set. This is a very crude estimate but it can be refined to great precision with a sketching algorithm.
A thorough explanation of the mechanics behind this algorithm can be found in the original paper.
Note: Starting Spark 1.6, when Spark calls SELECT SOME_AGG(DISTINCT foo)), SOME_AGG(DISTINCT bar)) FROM df each clause should trigger separate aggregation for each clause. Whereas this is different than SELECT SOME_AGG(foo), SOME_AGG(bar) FROM df where we aggregate once. Thus the performance won't be comparable when using a count(distinct(_)) and approxCountDistinct (or approx_count_distinct).
It's one of the changes of behavior since Spark 1.6 :
With the improved query planner for queries having distinct aggregations (SPARK-9241), the plan of a query having a single distinct aggregation has been changed to a more robust version. To switch back to the plan generated by Spark 1.5’s planner, please set spark.sql.specializeSingleDistinctAggPlanning to true. (SPARK-12077)
Reference : Approximate Algorithms in Apache Spark: HyperLogLog and Quantiles.
if you just want to count for particular column then following could help. Although its late answer. it might help someone. (pyspark 2.2.0 tested)
from pyspark.sql.functions import col, countDistinct
df.agg(countDistinct(col("colName")).alias("count")).show()
Adding to desaiankitb's answer, this would provide you a more intuitive answer :
from pyspark.sql.functions import count
df.groupBy(colname).count().show()
You can use the count(column name) function of SQL
Alternatively if you are using data analysis and want a rough estimation and not exact count of each and every column you can use approx_count_distinct function
approx_count_distinct(expr[, relativeSD])
This is one way to create dataframe with every column counts :
> df = df.to_pandas_on_spark()
> collect_df = []
> for i in df.columns:
> collect_df.append({"field_name": i , "unique_count": df[i].nunique()})
> uniquedf = spark.createDataFrame(collect_df)
Output would like below. I used this with another dataframe to compare values if columns names are same.Other dataframe was also created way then joined.
df_prod_merged = uniquedf1.join(uniquedf2, on='field_name', how="left")
This is easy way to do it might be expensive on very huge data like 1 tb to process but still very efficient when used to_pandas_on_spark()

Spark: Join within UDF or map function

I have to write a complex UDF, in which I have to do a join with a different table, and return the number of matches. The actual use case is much more complex, but I've simplified the case here to minimum reproducible code. Here is the UDF code.
def predict_id(date,zip):
filtered_ids = contest_savm.where((F.col('postal_code')==zip) & (F.col('start_date')>=date))
return filtered_ids.count()
When I define the UDF using the below code, I get a long list of console errors:
predict_id_udf = F.udf(predict_id,types.IntegerType())
The final line of the error is:
py4j.Py4JException: Method __getnewargs__([]) does not exist
I want to know what is the best way to go about it. I also tried map like this:
result_rdd = df.select("party_id").rdd\
.map(lambda x: predict_id(x[0],x[1]))\
.distinct()
It also resulted in a similar final error. I want to know, if there is anyway, I can do a join within UDF or map function, for each row of the original dataframe.
I have to write a complex UDF, in which I have to do a join with a different table, and return the number of matches.
It is not possible by design. I you want to achieve effect like this you have to use high level DF / RDD operators:
df.join(ontest_savm,
(F.col('postal_code')==df["zip"]) & (F.col('start_date') >= df["date"])
).groupBy(*df.columns).count()

Transforming Spark SQL AST with extraOptimizations

I'm wanting to take a SQL string as a user input, then transform it before execution. In particular, I want to modify the top-level projection (select clause), injecting additional columns to be retrieved by the query.
I was hoping to achieve this by hooking into Catalyst using sparkSession.experimental.extraOptimizations. I know that what I'm attempting isn't strictly speaking an optimisation (the transformation changes the semantics of the SQL statement), but the API still seems suitable. However, my transformation seems to be ignored by the query executor.
Here is a minimal example to illustrate the issue I'm having. First define a row case class:
case class TestRow(a: Int, b: Int, c: Int)
Then define an optimisation rule which simply discards any projection:
object RemoveProjectOptimisationRule extends Rule[LogicalPlan] {
def apply(plan: LogicalPlan): LogicalPlan = plan transformDown {
case x: Project => x.child
}
}
Now create a dataset, register the optimisation, and run a SQL query:
// Create a dataset and register table.
val dataset = List(TestRow(1, 2, 3)).toDS()
val tableName: String = "testtable"
dataset.createOrReplaceTempView(tableName)
// Register "optimisation".
sparkSession.experimental.extraOptimizations =
Seq(RemoveProjectOptimisationRule)
// Run query.
val projected = sqlContext.sql("SELECT a FROM " + tableName + " WHERE a = 1")
// Print query result and the queryExecution object.
println("Query result:")
projected.collect.foreach(println)
println(projected.queryExecution)
Here is the output:
Query result:
[1]
== Parsed Logical Plan ==
'Project ['a]
+- 'Filter ('a = 1)
+- 'UnresolvedRelation `testtable`
== Analyzed Logical Plan ==
a: int
Project [a#3]
+- Filter (a#3 = 1)
+- SubqueryAlias testtable
+- LocalRelation [a#3, b#4, c#5]
== Optimized Logical Plan ==
Filter (a#3 = 1)
+- LocalRelation [a#3, b#4, c#5]
== Physical Plan ==
*Filter (a#3 = 1)
+- LocalTableScan [a#3, b#4, c#5]
We see that the result is identical to that of the original SQL statement, without the transformation applied. Yet, when printing the logical and physical plans, the projection has indeed been removed. I've also confirmed (through debug log output) that the transformation is indeed being invoked.
Any suggestions as to what's going on here? Maybe the optimiser simply ignores "optimisations" that change semantics?
If using the optimisations isn't the way to go, can anybody suggest an alternative? All I really want to do is parse the input SQL statement, transform it, and pass the transformed AST to Spark for execution. But as far as I can see, the APIs for doing this are private to the Spark sql package. It may be possible to use reflection, but I'd like to avoid that.
Any pointers would be much appreciated.
As you guessed, this is failing to work because we make assumptions that the optimizer will not change the results of the query.
Specifically, we cache the schema that comes out of the analyzer (and assume the optimizer does not change it). When translating rows to the external format, we use this schema and thus are truncating the columns in the result. If you did more than truncate (i.e. changed datatypes) this might even crash.
As you can see in this notebook, it is in fact producing the result you would expect under the covers. We are planning to open up more hooks at some point in the near future that would let you modify the plan at other phases of query execution. See SPARK-18127 for more details.
Michael Armbrust's answer confirmed that this kind of transformation shouldn't be done via optimisations.
I've instead used internal APIs in Spark to achieve the transformation I wanted for now. It requires methods that are package-private in Spark. So we can access them without reflection by putting the relevant logic in the appropriate package. In outline:
// Must be in the spark.sql package.
package org.apache.spark.sql
object SQLTransformer {
def apply(sparkSession: SparkSession, ...) = {
// Get the AST.
val ast = sparkSession.sessionState.sqlParser.parsePlan(sql)
// Transform the AST.
val transformedAST = ast match {
case node: Project => // Modify any top-level projection
...
}
// Create a dataset directly from the AST.
Dataset.ofRows(sparkSession, transformedAST)
}
}
Note that this of course may break with future versions of Spark.

Resources