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.
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.
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.
1.) I understand that "Spark's operators spills data to disk if it does not fit memory allowing it to run well on any sized data".
If this is true, why do we ever get OOM (Out of Memory) errors?
2.) Increasing the no. of executor cores increases parallelism. Would that also increase the chances of OOM, because the same memory is now divided into smaller parts for each core?
3.) Spark is much more susceptible to OOM because it performs operations in memory as compared to Hive, which repeatedly reads, writes into disk. Is that correct?
There is one angle that you need to consider there. You may get memory leaks if the data is not properly distributed. That means that you need to distribute your data evenly (if possible) on the Tasks so that you reduce shuffling as much as possible and make those Tasks to manage their own data. So if you need to perform a join, if data is distributed randomly, every Task (and therefore executor) will have to:
See what data they have
Send data to other executors (and tasks) to provide the same keys they need
Request the data that is needed by that task to the others
All that data exchange may cause network bottlenecks if you have a large dataset and also will make every Task to hold their data in memory plus whatever has been sent and temporary objects. All of those will blow up memory.
So to prevent that situation you can:
Load the data already repartitioned. By that I mean, if you are loading from a DB, try Spark stride as defined here. Please refer to the partitionColumn, lowerBound, upperBound attributes. That way you will create a number of partitions on the dataframe that will set the data on different tasks based on the criteria you need. If you are going to use a join of two dataframes, try similar approach on them so that partitions are similar (for not to say same) and that will prevent shuffling over network.
When you define partitions, try to make those values as evenly distributed among tasks as possible
The size of each partition should fit on memory. Although there could be spill to disk, that would slow down performance
If you don't have a column that make the data evenly distributed, try to create one that would have n number of different values, depending on the n number of tasks that you have
If you are reading from a csv, that would make it harder to create partitions, but still it's possible. You can either split the data (csv) on multiple files and create multiple dataframes (performing a union after they are loaded) or you can read that big csv and apply a repartition on the column you need. That will create shuffling as well, but it will be done once if you cache the dataframe already repartitioned
Reading from parquet it's possible that you may have multiple files but if they are not evenly distributed (because the previous process that generated didn't do it well) you may end up on OOM errors. To prevent that situation, you can load and apply repartition on the dataframe too
Or another trick valid for csv, parquet files, orc, etc. is to create a Hive table on top of that and run a query from Spark running a distribute by clause on the data, so that you can make Hive to redistribute, instead of Spark
To your question about Hive and Spark, I think you are right up to some point. Depending on the execute engine that Hive uses in your case (map/reduce, Tez, Hive on Spark, LLAP) you can have different behaviours. With map/reduce, as they are mostly disk operations, the chance to have a OOM is much lower than on Spark. Actually from Memory point of view, map/reduce is not that affected because of a skewed data distribution. But (IMHO) your goal should be to find always the best data distribution for the Spark job you are running and that will prevent that problem
Another consideration is if you are testing in a dev environment that doesn't have same data as in a prod environment. I suppose the data distribution should be similar although volumes may differ a lot (I am talking from experience ;)). In that case, when you assign Spark tuning parameters on the spark-submit command, they may be different in prod. So you need to invest some time on finding the best approach on dev and fine tune in prod
Huge majority of OOM in Spark are on the driver, not executors. This is usually a result of running .collect or similar actions on a dataset that won't fit in the driver memory.
Spark does a lot of work under the hood to parallelize the work, when using structured APIs (in contrast to RDDs) the chances of causing OOM on executor are really slim. Some combinations of cluster configuration and jobs can cause memory pressure that will impact performance and cause lots of garbage collection to happen so you need to address it, however spark should be able to handle low memory without explicit exception.
Not really - as above, Spark should be able to recover from memory issues when using structured APIs, however it may need intervention if you see garbage collection and performance impact.
I am a newbie to the spark and have question regarding spark memory usage with iterators.
When using Foreach() or MapPartitions() of Datasets (or even a direct call to iterator() function of RDD), does spark needs to load the entire partition to RAM first (assuming partition is in disk) or can data be lazy loaded as we continue to iterate (meaning that spark can load only part of the partition data execute task and save to disk the intermediate result)
The first difference of those two is that forEach() is an action when mapPartition() is a transformation. It would be more meaningful to compare forEach with forEachPartition since they are both actions and they both work on the final-accumulated data on the driver. Refer here for a detailed discussions over those two. As for the memory consumption it really depends on how much data you return to the driver. As a rule of thumb remember to return the results on the driver using methods like limit(), take(), first() etc and avoid using collect() unless you are sure that the data can fit on driver's memory.
The mapPartition can be compared with the map or flatMap functions and they will modify the dataset's data by applying some transformation. mapPartition is more efficient since it will execute the given func fewer times when map will do the same of each item in the dataset. Refer here for more details about these two functions.
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.