I want to even out the partition size of rdds/dataframes in Spark to get rid of straggler tasks that slow my job down. I can do so using repartition(n_partition), which creates partitions of quite uniform size. However, that involves an expensive shuffle.
I know that coalesce(n_desired_partitions) is a cheaper alternative that avoids shuffling, and instead merges partitions on the same executor. However, it's not clear to me whether this function tries to create partitions of roughly uniform size, or simply merges input partitions without regard to their sizes.
For example, let's say that the following we have an Rdd of the integers in the range [1,12] in three partitions as follows: [(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8),(9,10),(11,12)]. Let's say these are all on the same executor.
Now I call rdd.coalesce(2). Will the algorithm that powers coalesce know to merge the two small partitions (because they're smaller and we want balanced partition sizes), rather than just merging two arbitrary partitions?
Discussion of this topic elsewhere
According to this presentation (skip to 7:27) Netflix big data team needed to implement a custom coalese function to balance partition sizes. See also SPARK-14042.
Why this question's not a duplicate
There is a more general question about the differences between partition and coalesce here, but nobody gets there explains whether the algorithm that powers coalesce tries to balance partition size.
So actually repartition is nothing its def is look like below
def repartition(numPartitions: Int)(implicit ord: Ordering[T] = null): RDD[T] = withScope {
coalesce(numPartitions, shuffle = true)
}
So its simply coalesce with shuffle but when call coalesce its shuffle will be by default false so it will not shuffle the data till its will not needed.
Example you have 2 cluster node and each have 2 partitions and now u call rdd.coalesce(2) so it will merge the local partitions of the node or if you call the coalesce(1) then it will need the shuffle because other 2 partition will be on another node so may be in your case it will join local node partitions and that node have less number of partitions so ur partition size is not uniform.
ok according to your editing of question i also try to do the same as follows
val data = sc.parallelize(List(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12))
data.getNumPartitions
res2: Int = 4
data.mapPartitionsWithIndex{case (a,b)=>println("partitionssss"+a);b.map(y=>println("dataaaaaaaaaaaa"+y))}.count
the output of above code will be
And now i coalesce the 4 partition to 2 and run the same code on that rdd to check how optimize spark coalesce the data so the output will be
Now you can easily see that the spark equally distribute the data to both the partitions 6-6 even before coalesce it the number of elements are not same in all partitions.
val coal=data.coalesce(2)
coal.getNumPartitions
res4: Int = 2
coal.mapPartitionsWithIndex{case (a,b)=>println("partitionssss"+a);b.map(y=>println("dataaaaaaaaaaaa"+y))}.count
Related
What I understand is
When we repartition any dataframe with value n, data will continue to remain on those n partitions, until you hit any shuffle stages or other value of repartition or coalesce.
For Shuffle, it only comes into the play when you hit any shuffle stages and data will continue to remain on those partitions until you hit coalesce or repartition.
I am right ?
If yes then, can any one point out a striking difference?
TLDR - Repartition is invoked as per developer's need but shuffle is done when there is a logical demand
I assume you're talking about config property spark.sql.shuffle.partitions and method .repartition.
As data distribution is an important aspect in any distributed environment, which not only governs parallelism but can also create adverse impacts if the distribution is uneven. However, repartitioning itself is a costly operation as it involves heavy movement of data (i.e. Shuffling). The .repartition method is used to explicitly repartition the data into new partitions - meaning to increase or decrease the number of partitions in the program based on your need. You can invoke this whenever you want.
As opposed to this, spark.sql.shuffle.partitions is a configuration property that governs the number of partitions created when a data movement happens as a result of operations like aggregations and joins.
Configures the number of partitions to use when shuffling data for
joins or aggregations.
When you're performing transformations other than join or aggregation, the above configuration won't have any impact on the number of partitions the new Dataframe will have.
Your confusion between the two is due to both operations involving shuffling. While that is true, the former (i.e. repartition) is an explicit operation where the user is dictating the framework to increase or decrease the number of partitions - which in turn causes shuffling, while in case of joins/aggregation - the shuffling is caused by the operation itself.
Basically -
Joins/Aggregations cause shuffling which causes repartitioning
repartition is asked thus, shuffling has to be done
Another method coalesce make the difference clearer.
For reference, coalesce is a variant of repartition which can only lower the number of partitions, not necessarily equal in size. As it already knows the number of partitions are only to be decreased, it can perform it with minimal shuffling (just join two adjacent partitions until the number is met).
Consider your dataframe has 4 partitions but has data only in 2 of them, thus you decide to reduce the number of partitions to 2. When using coalesce spark tries to achieve this without shuffling or with minimal shuffling.
df.rdd().getNumPartitions(); // Returns 4 with size 0, 0, 2, 4
df=df.coalesce(2); // Decrease partitions to 2
df.rdd().getNumPartitions(); // Returns 2 now with size 2, 4
So there was no shuffling involved. While the following
df1.rdd().getNumPartitions() // Returns 4
df2.rdd().getNumPartitions() // Returns 8
df1.join(df2).rdd().getNumPartitions() // Returns 200
As you've performed a join it'll always return the number of partitions based on spark.sql.shuffle.partitions
Lets say I have a dataset with 20 partitions when I was going to read some data. Then I do aggregate operation on that dataset , which would make no of partitions to be 200(because of default shuffle partitions size). Now without calling any action on that dataset so far , I apply coalesce on that same data set giving 30 partitions in coalesce operation and then call some spark action on that dataset.
So my question is, how many partitions will be in action while that dataset would be having its aggregate operation ? Will it be 30 partitions(because that was the coalesce partitions given ) only or 200 shuffle partitions ?
Editing to provide more clarification on my question:
I understand that coalesce operation in itself will not do shuffle unless we drastically changed no of partitions. I also understand that final dataset will have numPartitions size only , but my question is if I change no of partitions before calling any action on that dataframne , would that resulting action will operate on the final no of partitions we had given(in my case 30) or it will also honor intermediate partitions size that we had given in aggregate operation. So in all, I am mainly looking whether aggregation will be done with 200 partitions and then coalesce will be applied or aggregation will also be performed with 30(in my case) partitions only.
Yes, your final action will operate on partitions generated by coalesce, like in your case it's 30.
As we know there is two types of transformation narrow and wide.
Narrow transformation don't do shuffling and don't do repartitioning but wide shuffling shuffle the data between node and generate new partition.
So if you check coalesce is a wide transformation and it will create a new stage before proceeding for next transformation or action and next stage will work on shuffle partition generated by coalesce.
So yes, your actions will going to work on 30 partitions.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/data-flair.training/blogs/spark-rdd-operations-transformations-actions/amp/
Coalesce
Returns a new SparkDataFrame that has exactly numPartitions
partitions. This operation results in a narrow dependency, e.g. if you
go from 1000 partitions to 100 partitions, there will not be a
shuffle, instead each of the 100 new partitions will claim 10 of the
current partitions. If a larger number of partitions is requested, it
will stay at the current number of partitions.
However, if you're doing a drastic coalesce on a SparkDataFrame, e.g.
to numPartitions = 1, this may result in your computation taking place
on fewer nodes than you like (e.g. one node in the case of
numPartitions = 1). To avoid this, call repartition. This will add a
shuffle step, but means the current upstream partitions will be
executed in parallel (per whatever the current partitioning is).
https://spark.apache.org/docs/2.2.1/api/R/coalesce.html
Coalesce: Shuffle the data into existing number of partitions.
https://medium.com/#mrpowers/managing-spark-partitions-with-coalesce-and-repartition-4050c57ad5c4#.36o8a7b5j
I am writing my dataframe like below
df.write().format("com.databricks.spark.avro").save("path");
However I am getting around 200 files where around 30-40 files are empty.I can understand that it might be due to empty partitions. I then updated my code like
df.coalesce(50).write().format("com.databricks.spark.avro").save("path");
But I feel it might impact performance. Is there any other better approach to limit number of output files and remove empty files
You can remove the empty partitions in your RDD before writing by using repartition method.
The default partition is 200.
The suggested number of partition is number of partitions = number of cores * 4
repartition your dataframe using this method. To eliminate skew and ensure even distribution of data choose column(s) in your dataframe with high cardinality (having unique number of values in the columns) for the partitionExprs argument to ensure even distribution.
As default no. of RDD partitions is 200; you have to do shuffle to remove skewed partitions.
You can either use repartition method on the RDD; or make use of DISTRIBUTE BY clause on dataframe - which will repartition along with distributing data among partitions evenly.
def repartition(numPartitions: Int, partitionExprs: Column*): Dataset[T]
Returns dataset instance with proper partitions.
You may use repartitionAndSortWithinPartitions - which can improve compression ratio.
When does an RDD get it's preferred location? How is the preferred location determined?
I've seen some weird behaviors in repartition and coalesce I could not quite make sense of:
1. When coalescing form n to n-1 partitions, I see spark just coalesce one partition to another single partition. (I think the ideal behavior would be evenly distribute to all n-1 nodes)
When run repartition I see spark repartition such that one node have multiple partition of rdds.
Does the above behavior have something to do with preferedLocations?
Note that rdd.repartition(n) just calls rdd.coalesce(n, shuffle = true), so we're just comparing shuffle true vs false.
shuffle = false
In this mode, Spark constructs a new RDD whose partitions contain one or more partitions of the parent RDD -- if you coalesce from n partitions -> n/2 partitions, then each partition consists of the elements from two semi-random partitions in the parent. This mode is appropriate when you want to reduce partitioning and the partitions are already balanced, like when you've done a filter that affects elements in each partition roughly equally. The overhead is very low. Also, note that it's impossible to increase number of partitions with this mode.
shuffle = true
For some background, I recommend this blog post for learning a bit more about how and why we shuffle. The fundamental differences in this execution mode are:
higher overhead (all data is transmitted over network)
good for rebalancing partitions (if you perform a filter that drops out either all elements in a partition or none, then shuffle=false will produce imbalanced partitions, but shuffle=true will resolve the issue)
can increase the number of partitions
Preferred locations don't have much to do with it -- you're seeing preferred locations only in the shuffle = false mode because the locality is preserved without shuffles, but after a shuffle the original preferredLocations are irrelevant (replaced with new preferred locations about shuffle destinations).
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.