Beneath you see a simplified version of what I'm trying to do. I load a Dataframe from 150 parquets(>10TB) stored in S3, Then I give this dataframe an id column with func.monotonically_increasing_id(). Afterwards I save a couple of deviates of this dataframe. The function I apply are a little bit more complicated than I present here but I hope this gets the point across
DF_loaded = spark.read.parquet(/some/path/*/')
DF_with_IDs = DF_loaded.withColumn('id',func.monotonically_increasing_id())
#creating parquet_1
DF_with_IDs.where(col('a').isNotNull()).write.parquet('/path/parquet_1/')
#creating parquet_2
DF_with_IDs.where(col('b').isNotNull()).write.parquet('/path/parquet_2/')
now I noticed that spark after creating parquet_1 loads again all the data from S3 to create parquet_2. Now I'm worried that the IDs given to parquet_1 do not match those of parquet_2. That the same row has different IDs in both parquets. Because as far is I understand it the logic plan spark comes up with looks like this:
#parquet_1
load_data -> give_ids -> make_selection -> write_parquet
#parquet_2
load_data -> give_ids -> make_selection -> write_parquet
So are the same IDs given to the same rows in both parquets?
As long as:
You use a recent version of Spark (SPARK-13473, SPARK-14241).
There is no configuration change between actions (Changes in a configuration can affect number of partitions and as a result ids).
monotonically_increasing_id should be stable. Note that this disables predicate pushdown.
rdd.zipWithindex.toDF should be stable independent of configuration, so it might be preferable.
Related
I've got a problem with Spark, its driver and an OoM issue.
Currently I have a dataframe which is being built with several, joined sources (actually different tables in parquet format), and there are thousands of tuples. They have a date which represents the date of creation of the record, and distinctly they are a few.
I do the following:
from pyspark.sql.functions import year, month
# ...
selectionRows = inputDataframe.select(year('registration_date').alias('year'), month('registration_date').alias('month')).distinct()
selectionRows.show() # correctly shows 8 tuples
selectionRows = selectionRows.collect() # goes heap space OoM
print(selectionRows)
Reading the memory consumption statistics shows that the driver does not exceed ~60%. I thought that the driver should load only the distinct subset, not the entire dataframe.
Am I missing something? Is it possible to collect those few rows in a smarter way? I need them as a pushdown predicate to load a secondary dataframe.
Thank you very much!
EDIT / SOLUTION
After reading the comments and elaborating my personal needs, I cached the dataframe at every "join/elaborate" step, so that in a timeline I do the following:
Join with loaded table
Queue required transformations
Apply the cache transformation
Print the count to keep track of cardinality (mainly for tracking / debugging purposes) and thus apply all transformations + cache
Unpersist the cache of the previous sibiling step, if available (tick/tock paradigm)
This reduced some complex ETL jobs down to 20% of the original time (as previously it was applying the transformations of each previous step at each count).
Lesson learned :)
After reading the comments, I elaborated the solution for my use case.
As mentioned in the question, I join several tables one with each other in a "target dataframe", and at each iteration I do some transformations, like so:
# n-th table work
target = target.join(other, how='left')
target = target.filter(...)
target = target.withColumn('a', 'b')
target = target.select(...)
print(f'Target after table "other": {target.count()}')
The problem of slowliness / OoM was that Spark was forced to do all the transformations from start to finish at each table due to the ending count, making it slower and slower at each table / iteration.
The solution I found is to cache the dataframe at each iteration, like so:
cache: DataFrame = null
# ...
# n-th table work
target = target.join(other, how='left')
target = target.filter(...)
target = target.withColumn('a', 'b')
target = target.select(...)
target = target.cache()
target_count = target.count() # actually do the cache
if cache:
cache.unpersist() # free the memory from the old cache version
cache = target
print(f'Target after table "other": {target_count}')
I am working on Spark SQL where I need to find out Diff between two large CSV's.
Diff should give:-
Inserted Rows or new Record // Comparing only Id's
Changed Rows (Not include inserted ones) - Comparing all column values
Deleted rows // Comparing only Id's
Spark 2.4.4 + Java
I am using Databricks to Read/Write CSV
Dataset<Row> insertedDf = newDf_temp.join(oldDf_temp,oldDf_temp.col(key)
.equalTo(newDf_temp.col(key)),"left_anti");
Long insertedCount = insertedDf.count();
logger.info("Inserted File Count == "+insertedCount);
Dataset<Row> deletedDf = oldDf_temp.join(newDf_temp,oldDf_temp.col(key)
.equalTo(newDf_temp.col(key)),"left_anti")
.select(oldDf_temp.col(key));
Long deletedCount = deletedDf.count();
logger.info("deleted File Count == "+deletedCount);
Dataset<Row> changedDf = newDf_temp.exceptAll(oldDf_temp); // This gives rows (New +changed Records)
Dataset<Row> changedDfTemp = changedDf.join(insertedDf, changedDf.col(key)
.equalTo(insertedDf.col(key)),"left_anti"); // This gives only changed record
Long changedCount = changedDfTemp.count();
logger.info("Changed File Count == "+changedCount);
This works well for CSV with columns upto 50 or so.
The Above code fails for one row in CSV with 300+columns, so I am sure this is not file Size problem.
But if I have a CSV having 300+ Columns then it fails with Exception
Max iterations (100) reached for batch Resolution – Spark Error
If I set the below property in Spark, It Works!!!
sparkConf.set("spark.sql.optimizer.maxIterations", "500");
But my question is why do I have to set this?
Is there something wrong which I am doing?
Or this behaviour is expected for CSV's which have large columns.
Can I optimize it in any way to handle Large column CSV's.
The issue you are running into is related to how spark takes the instructions you tell it and transforms that into the actual things it's going to do. It first needs to understand your instructions by running Analyzer, then it tries to improve them by running its optimizer. The setting appears to apply to both.
Specifically your code is bombing out during a step in the Analyzer. The analyzer is responsible for figuring out when you refer to things what things you are actually referring to. For example, mapping function names to implementations or mapping column names across renames, and different transforms. It does this in multiple passes resolving additional things each pass, then checking again to see if it can resolve move.
I think what is happening for your case is each pass probably resolves one column, but 100 passes isn't enough to resolve all of the columns. By increasing it you are giving it enough passes to be able to get entirely through your plan. This is definitely a red flag for a potential performance issue, but if your code is working then you can probably just increase the value and not worry about it.
If it isn't working, then you will probably need to try to do something to reduce the number of columns used in your plan. Maybe combining all the columns into one encoded string column as the key. You might benefit from checkpointing the data before doing the join so you can shorten your plan.
EDIT:
Also, I would refactor your above code so you could do it all with only one join. This should be a lot faster, and might solve your other problem.
Each join leads to a shuffle (data being sent between compute nodes) which adds time to your job. Instead of computing adds, deletes and changes independently, you can just do them all at once. Something like the below code. It's in scala psuedo code because I'm more familiar with that than the Java APIs.
import org.apache.spark.sql.functions._
var oldDf = ..
var newDf = ..
val changeCols = newDf.columns.filter(_ != "id").map(col)
// Make the columns you want to compare into a single struct column for easier comparison
newDf = newDF.select($"id", struct(changeCols:_*) as "compare_new")
oldDf = oldDF.select($"id", struct(changeCols:_*) as "compare_old")
// Outer join on ID
val combined = oldDF.join(newDf, Seq("id"), "outer")
// Figure out status of each based upon presence of old/new
// IF old side is missing, must be an ADD
// IF new side is missing, must be a DELETE
// IF both sides present but different, it's a CHANGE
// ELSE it's NOCHANGE
val status = when($"compare_new".isNull, lit("add")).
when($"compare_old".isNull, lit("delete")).
when($"$compare_new" != $"compare_old", lit("change")).
otherwise(lit("nochange"))
val labeled = combined.select($"id", status)
At this point, we have every ID labeled ADD/DELETE/CHANGE/NOCHANGE so we can just a groupBy/count. This agg can be done almost entirely map side so it will be a lot faster than a join.
labeled.groupBy("status").count.show
I recently began to use Spark to process huge amount of data (~1TB). And have been able to get the job done too. However I am still trying to understand its working. Consider the following scenario:
Set reference time (say tref)
Do any one of the following two tasks:
a. Read large amount of data (~1TB) from tens of thousands of files using SciSpark into RDDs (OR)
b. Read data as above and do additional preprossing work and store the results in a DataFrame
Print the size of the RDD or DataFrame as applicable and time difference wrt to tref (ie, t0a/t0b)
Do some computation
Save the results
In other words, 1b creates a DataFrame after processing RDDs generated exactly as in 1a.
My query is the following:
Is it correct to infer that t0b – t0a = time required for preprocessing? Where can I find an reliable reference for the same?
Edit: Explanation added for the origin of question ...
My suspicion stems from Spark's lazy computation approach and its capability to perform asynchronous jobs. Can/does it initiate subsequent (preprocessing) tasks that can be computed while thousands of input files are being read? The origin of the suspicion is in the unbelievable performance (with results verified okay) I see that look too fantastic to be true.
Thanks for any reply.
I believe something like this could assist you (using Scala):
def timeIt[T](op: => T): Float = {
val start = System.currentTimeMillis
val res = op
val end = System.currentTimeMillis
(end - start) / 1000f
}
def XYZ = {
val r00 = sc.parallelize(0 to 999999)
val r01 = r00.map(x => (x,(x,x,x,x,x,x,x)))
r01.join(r01).count()
}
val time1 = timeIt(XYZ)
// or like this on next line
//val timeN = timeIt(r01.join(r01).count())
println(s"bla bla $time1 seconds.")
You need to be creative and work incrementally with Actions that cause actual execution. This has limitations thus. Lazy evaluation and such.
On the other hand, Spark Web UI records every Action, and records Stage duration for the Action.
In general: performance measuring in shared environments is difficult. Dynamic allocation in Spark in a noisy cluster means that you hold on to acquired resources during the Stage, but upon successive runs of the same or next Stage you may get less resources. But this is at least indicative and you can run in a less busy period.
I have an ML dataframe which I read from csv files. It contains three types of columns:
ID Timestamp Feature1 Feature2...Feature_n
where n is ~ 500 (500 features in ML parlance). The total number of rows in the dataset is ~ 160 millions.
As this is the result of a previous full join, there are many features which do not have values set.
My aim is to run a "fill" function(fillna style form python pandas), where each empty feature value gets set with the previously available value for that column, per Id and Date.
I am trying to achieve this with the following spark 2.2.1 code:
val rawDataset = sparkSession.read.option("header", "true").csv(inputLocation)
val window = Window.partitionBy("ID").orderBy("DATE").rowsBetween(-50000, -1)
val columns = Array(...) //first 30 columns initially, just to see it working
val rawDataSetFilled = columns.foldLeft(rawDataset) { (originalDF, columnToFill) =>
originalDF.withColumn(columnToFill, coalesce(col(columnToFill), last(col(columnToFill), ignoreNulls = true).over(window)))
}
I am running this job on a 4 m4.large instances on Amazon EMR, with spark 2.2.1. and dynamic allocation enabled.
The job runs for over 2h without completing.
Am I doing something wrong, at the code level? Given the size of the data, and the instances, I would assume it should finish in a reasonable amount of time? And I haven't even tried with the full 500 columns, just with about 30!
Looking in the container logs, all I see are many logs like this:
INFO codegen.CodeGenerator: Code generated in 166.677493 ms
INFO execution.ExternalAppendOnlyUnsafeRowArray: Reached spill
threshold of
4096 rows, switching to
org.apache.spark.util.collection.unsafe.sort.UnsafeExternalSorter
I have tried setting parameter spark.sql.windowExec.buffer.spill.threshold to something larger, without any impact. Is theresome other setting I should know about? Those 2 lines are the only ones I see in any container log.
In Ganglia, I see most of the CPU cores peaking around full usage, but the memory usage is lower than the maximum available. All executors are allocated and are doing work.
I have managed to rewrite the fold left logic without using withColumn calls. Apparently they can be very slow for large number of columns, and I was also getting stackoverflow errors because of that.
I would be curious to know why this massive difference - and what exactly happens behind the scenes with the query plan execution, which makes repeated withColumns calls so slow.
Links which proved very helpful: Spark Jira issue and this stackoverflow question
var rawDataset = sparkSession.read.option("header", "true").csv(inputLocation)
val window = Window.partitionBy("ID").orderBy("DATE").rowsBetween(Window.unboundedPreceding, Window.currentRow)
rawDataset = rawDataset.select(rawDataset.columns.map(column => coalesce(col(column), last(col(column), ignoreNulls = true).over(window)).alias(column)): _*)
rawDataset.write.option("header", "true").csv(outputLocation)
I have been experimenting different ways to filter a typed data set. It turns out the performance can be quite different.
The data set was created based on a 1.6 GB rows of data with 33 columns and 4226047 rows. DataSet is created by loading csv data and mapped to a case class.
val df = spark.read.csv(csvFile).as[FireIncident]
A filter on UnitId = 'B02' should return 47980 rows. I tested three ways as below:
1) Use typed column (~ 500 ms on local host)
df.where($"UnitID" === "B02").count()
2) Use temp table and sql query (~ same as option 1)
df.createOrReplaceTempView("FireIncidentsSF")
spark.sql("SELECT * FROM FireIncidentsSF WHERE UnitID='B02'").count()
3) Use strong typed class field (14,987ms, i.e. 30 times as slow)
df.filter(_.UnitID.orNull == "B02").count()
I tested it again with the python API, for the same data set, the timing is 17,046 ms, comparable to the performance of the scala API option 3.
df.filter(df['UnitID'] == 'B02').count()
Could someone shed some light on how 3) and the python API are executed differently from the first two options?
It's because of step 3 here.
In the first two, spark doesn't need to deserialize the whole Java/Scala object - it just looks at the one column and moves on.
In the third, since you're using a lambda function, spark can't tell that you just want the one field, so it pulls all 33 fields out of memory for each row, so that you can check the one field.
I'm not sure why the fourth is so slow. It seems like it would work the same way as the first.
When running python what is happening is that first your code is loaded onto the JVM, interpreted, and then its finally compiled into bytecode. When using the Scala API, Scala natively runs on the JVM so you're cutting out the entire load python code into the JVM part.