I was trying to improve the performance of some existing spark dataframe by adding ignite on top of it. Following code is how we currently read dataframe
val df = sparksession.read.parquet(path).cache()
I managed to save and load spark dataframe from ignite by the example here: https://apacheignite-fs.readme.io/docs/ignite-data-frame. Following code is how I do it now with ignite
val df = spark.read()
.format(IgniteDataFrameSettings.FORMAT_IGNITE()) //Data source
.option(IgniteDataFrameSettings.OPTION_TABLE(), "person") //Table to read.
.option(IgniteDataFrameSettings.OPTION_CONFIG_FILE(), CONFIG) //Ignite config.
.load();
df.createOrReplaceTempView("person");
SQL Query(like select a, b, c from table where x) on ignite dataframe is working but the performance is much slower than spark alone(i.e without ignite, query spark DF directly), an SQL query often take 5 to 30 seconds, and it's common to be 2 or 3 times slower spark alone. I noticed many data(100MB+) are exchanged between ignite container and spark container for every query. Query with same "where" but smaller result is processed faster. Overall I feel ignite dataframe support seems to be a simple wrapper on top of spark. Hence most of the case it is slower than spark alone. Is my understanding correct?
Also by following the code example when the cache is created in ignite it automatically has a name like "SQL_PUBLIC_name_of_table_in_spark". So I could't change any cache configuration in xml (Because I need to specify cache name in xml/code to configure it and ignite will complain it already exists) Is this expected?
Thanks
First of all, it doesn't seem that your test is fair. In the first case you prefetch Parquet data, cache it locally in Spark, and only then execute the query. In case of Ignite DF you don't use caching, so data is fetched during query execution. Typically you will not be able to cache all your data, so performance with Parquet will go down significantly once some of the data needs to be fetched during execution.
However, with Ignite you can use indexing to improve the performance. For this particular case, you should create index on the x field to avoid scanning all the data every time query is executed. Here is the information on how to create an index: https://apacheignite-sql.readme.io/docs/create-index
Related
I'm trying to write a batch job to process a couple of hundreds of terabytes that currently sit in an HBase database (in an EMR cluster in AWS), all in a single large table. For every row I'm processing, I need to get additional data from a lookup table (a simple integer to string mapping) that is in a second HBase table. We'd be doing 5-10 lookups per row.
My current implementation uses a Spark job that's distributing partitions of the input table to its workers, in the following shape:
Configuration hBaseConfig = newHBaseConfig();
hBaseConfig.set(TableInputFormat.SCAN, convertScanToString(scan));
hBaseConfig.set(TableInputFormat.INPUT_TABLE, tableName);
JavaPairRDD<ImmutableBytesWritable, Result> table = sparkContext.newAPIHadoopRDD(hBaseConfig, TableInputFormat.class, ImmutableBytesWritable.class, Result.class);
table.map(val -> {
// some preprocessing
}).foreachPartition(p -> {
p.forEachRemaining(row -> {
// code that does the lookup
});
});
The problem is that the lookup table is too big to fit in the workers' memory. They all need access to all parts of the lookup table, but their access pattern would significantly benefit from a cache.
Am I right in thinking that I cannot use a simple map as a broadcast variable because it'd need to fit into memory?
Spark uses a shared nothing architecture, so I imagine there won't be an easy way to share a cache across all workers, but can we build a simple LRU cache for every individual worker?
How would I implement such a local worker cache that gets the data from the lookup table in HBase on a cache miss? Can I somehow distribute a reference to the second table to all workers?
I'm not set on my choice of technology, apart from HBase as the data source. Is there a framework other than Spark which could be a better fit for my use case?
You have a few of options for dealing with this requirement:
1- Use RDD or Dataset joins
You can load both of your HBase tables as Spark RDD or Datasets and then do a join on your lookup key.
Spark will split both RDD into partitions and shuffle content around so that rows with the same keys end up on the same executors.
By managing the number of number of partitions within spark you should be able to join 2 tables on any arbitrary sizes.
2- Broadcast a resolver instance
Instead of broadcasting a map, you can broadcast a resolver instance that does a HBase lookup and temporary LRU cache. Each executor will get a copy of this instance and can manage its own cache and you can invoke them within for foreachPartition() code.
Beware, the resolver instance needs to implement Serializable so you will have to declare the cache, HBase connections and HBase Configuration properties as transient to be initialized on each executor.
I run such a setup in Scala on one of the projects I maintain: it works and can be more efficient than the straight Spark join if you know your access patterns and manage you cache efficiently
3- Use the HBase Spark connector to implement your lookup logic
Apache HBase has recently incorporated improved HBase Spark connectors
The documentation is pretty sparse right now, you need to look at the JIRA tickets and the documentation of the previous incarnation of these tools
Cloudera's SparkOnHBase but the last unit test in the test suite looks pretty much like what you want
I have no experience with this API though.
For example on docs.datastax.com we mention :
table1 = sqlContext.read.format("org.apache.spark.sql.cassandra").options(table="kv", keyspace="ks").load()
and its the only way I know, but lets say that I want to load only the last one million entries from this table. I don't want to load the whole table in memory every time, especially if this table has for example, over 10 million entries.
Thanks!
While you can't load data faster. You can load portions of the data or terminate early. Spark DataFrames utilize catalyst to optimize it's underlying query plans enables it to take some short cuts.
For example calling limit will allow Spark to skip reading some portions from the underlying DataSource. These would limit the amount of data read from Cassandra by canceling tasks from being executed.
Calling filter, or adding filters can be utilized by the underlying Datasource to help restrict the amount of information actually pulled from Cassandra. There are limitations on what can be pushed down but this is all detailed in the documentation.
https://github.com/datastax/spark-cassandra-connector/blob/master/doc/14_data_frames.md#pushing-down-clauses-to-cassandra
Note all of this is accomplished by simply doing further api calls on your DataSource once you call it. For example
val df = sqlContext
.read
.format("org.apache.spark.sql.cassandra")
.options(table="kv", keyspace="ks")
.load()
df.show(10) // Will compute only enough tasks to get 10 records and no more
df.filter(clusteringKey > 5).show() //Will pass down the clustering predicate to C*
I am working with a large dataset, that is partitioned by two columns - plant_name and tag_id. The second partition - tag_id has 200000 unique values, and I mostly access the data by specific tag_id values. If I use the following Spark commands:
sqlContext.setConf("spark.sql.hive.metastorePartitionPruning", "true")
sqlContext.setConf("spark.sql.parquet.filterPushdown", "true")
val df = sqlContext.sql("select * from tag_data where plant_name='PLANT01' and tag_id='1000'")
I would expect a fast response as this resolves to a single partition. In Hive and Presto this takes seconds, however in Spark it runs for hours.
The actual data is held in a S3 bucket, and when I submit the sql query, Spark goes off and first gets all the partitions from the Hive metastore (200000 of them), and then calls refresh() to force a full status list of all these files in the S3 object store (actually calling listLeafFilesInParallel).
It is these two operations that are so expensive, are there any settings that can get Spark to prune the partitions earlier - either during the call to the metadata store, or immediately afterwards?
Yes, spark supports partition pruning.
Spark does a listing of partitions directories (sequential or parallel listLeafFilesInParallel) to build a cache of all partitions first time around. The queries in the same application, that scan data takes advantage of this cache. So the slowness that you see could be because of this cache building. The subsequent queries that scan data make use of the cache to prune partitions.
These are the logs which shows partitions being listed to populate the cache.
App > 16/11/14 10:45:24 main INFO ParquetRelation: Listing s3://test-bucket/test_parquet_pruning/month=2015-01 on driver
App > 16/11/14 10:45:24 main INFO ParquetRelation: Listing s3://test-bucket/test_parquet_pruning/month=2015-02 on driver
App > 16/11/14 10:45:24 main INFO ParquetRelation: Listing s3://test-bucket/test_parquet_pruning/month=2015-03 on driver
These are the logs showing pruning is happening.
App > 16/11/10 12:29:16 main INFO DataSourceStrategy: Selected 1 partitions out of 20, pruned 95.0% partitions.
Refer convertToParquetRelation and getHiveQlPartitions in HiveMetastoreCatalog.scala.
Just a thought:
Spark API documentation for HadoopFsRelation says,
( https://spark.apache.org/docs/1.6.2/api/java/org/apache/spark/sql/sources/HadoopFsRelation.html )
"...when reading from Hive style partitioned tables stored in file
systems, it's able to discover partitioning information from the paths
of input directories, and perform partition pruning before start
reading the data..."
So, i guess "listLeafFilesInParallel" could not be a problem.
A similar issue is already in spark jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-10673
In spite of "spark.sql.hive.verifyPartitionPath" set to false and, there is no effect in performance, I suspect that the
issue might have been caused by unregistered partitions. Please list out the partitions of the table and verify if all
the partitions are registered. Else, recover your partitions as shown in this link:
Hive doesn't read partitioned parquet files generated by Spark
Update:
I guess appropriate parquet block size and page size were set while writing the data.
Create a fresh hive table with partitions mentioned, and file-format as parquet, load it from non-partitioned table using dynamic partition approach.
( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/DynamicPartitions )
Run a plain hive query and then compare by running a spark program.
Disclaimer: I am not a spark/parquet expert. The problem sounded interesting, and hence responded.
similar question popped up here recently:
http://apache-spark-user-list.1001560.n3.nabble.com/Spark-SQL-reads-all-leaf-directories-on-a-partitioned-Hive-table-td35997.html#a36007
This question is old but I thought I'd post the solution here as well.
spark.sql.hive.convertMetastoreParquet=false
will use the Hive parquet serde instead of the spark inbuilt parquet serde. Hive's Parquet serde will not do a listLeafFiles on all partitions, but only and directly read from the selected partitions. On tables with many partitions and files, this is much faster (and cheaper, too). Feel free to try it ou! :)
I am using Spark SQL actually hiveContext.sql() which uses group by queries and I am running into OOM issues. So thinking of increasing value of spark.sql.shuffle.partitions from 200 default to 1000 but it is not helping.
I believe this partition will share data shuffle load so more the partitions less data to hold. I am new to Spark. I am using Spark 1.4.0 and I have around 1TB of uncompressed data to process using hiveContext.sql() group by queries.
If you're running out of memory on the shuffle, try setting spark.sql.shuffle.partitions to 2001.
Spark uses a different data structure for shuffle book-keeping when the number of partitions is greater than 2000:
private[spark] object MapStatus {
def apply(loc: BlockManagerId, uncompressedSizes: Array[Long]): MapStatus = {
if (uncompressedSizes.length > 2000) {
HighlyCompressedMapStatus(loc, uncompressedSizes)
} else {
new CompressedMapStatus(loc, uncompressedSizes)
}
}
...
I really wish they would let you configure this independently.
By the way, I found this information in a Cloudera slide deck.
OK so I think your issue is more general. It's not specific to Spark SQL, it's a general problem with Spark where it ignores the number of partitions you tell it when the files are few. Spark seems to have the same number of partitions as the number of files on HDFS, unless you call repartition. So calling repartition ought to work, but has the caveat of causing a shuffle somewhat unnecessarily.
I raised this question a while ago and have still yet to get a good answer :(
Spark: increase number of partitions without causing a shuffle?
It's actually depends on your data and your query, if Spark must load 1Tb, there is something wrong on your design.
Use the superbe web UI to see the DAG, mean how Spark is translating your SQL query to jobs/stages and tasks.
Useful metrics are "Input" and "Shuffle".
Partition your data (Hive / directory layout like /year=X/month=X)
Use spark CLUSTER BY feature, to work per data partition
Use ORC / Parquet file format because they provide "Push-down filter", useless data is not loaded to Spark
Analyze Spark History to see how Spark is reading data
Also, OOM could happen on your driver?
-> this is another issue, the driver will collect at the end the data you want. If you ask too much data, the driver will OOM, try limiting your query, or write another table (Spark syntax CREATE TABLE ...AS).
I came across this post from Cloudera about Hive Partitioning. Check out the "Pointers" section talking about number of partitions and number of files in each partition resulting in overloading the name node, which might cause OOM.
I am new to Spark/ Spark Cassandra Connector. We are trying spark for the first time in our team and we are using spark cassandra connector to connect to cassandra Database.
I wrote a query which is using a heavy table of the database and I saw that Spark Task didn't start until the query to the table fetched all the records.
It is taking more than 3 hours just to fetch all the records from the database.
To get the data from the DB we use.
CassandraJavaUtil.javaFunctions(sparkContextManager.getJavaSparkContext(SOURCE).sc())
.cassandraTable(keyspaceName, tableName);
Is there a way to tell spark to start working even if all the data didn't finish to download ?
Is there an option to tell spark-cassandra-connector to use more threads for the fetch ?
thanks,
kokou.
If you look at the Spark UI, how many partitions is your table scan creating? I just did something like this and I found that Spark was creating too many partitions for the scan and it was taking much longer as a result. The way I decreased the time on my job was by setting the configuration parameter spark.cassandra.input.split.size_in_mb to a value higher than the default. In my case it took a 20 minute job down to about four minutes. There are also a couple more Cassandra read specific Spark variables that you can set found here.
These stackoverflow questions are what I referenced originally, I hope they help you out as well.
Iterate large Cassandra table in small chunks
Set number of tasks on Cassandra table scan
EDIT:
After doing some performance testing with regards to fiddling with some Spark configuration parameters, I found that Spark was creating far too many table partitions when I wasn't giving the Spark executors enough memory. In my case, upping the memory by a gigabyte was enough to render the input split size parameter unnecessary. If you can't give the executors more memory, you may still need to set spark.cassandra.input.split.size_in_mbhigher as a form of workaround.