Dataframe A (millions of records) one of the column is create_date,modified_date
Dataframe B 500 records has start_date and end_date
Current approach:
Select a.*,b.* from a join b on a.create_date between start_date and end_date
The above job takes half hour or more to run.
how can I improve the performance
DataFrames currently doesn't have an approach for direct joins like that. It will fully read both tables before performing a join.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-16614
You can use the RDD API to take advantage of the joinWithCassandraTable function
https://github.com/datastax/spark-cassandra-connector/blob/master/doc/2_loading.md#using-joinwithcassandratable
As others suggested, one of the approach is to broadcast the smaller dataframe. This can be done automatically also by configuring the below parameter.
spark.sql.autoBroadcastJoinThreshold
If the dataframe size is smaller than the value specified here, Spark automatically broadcasts the smaller dataframe instead of performing a join. You can read more about this here.
Related
I have a case where i am trying to write some results using dataframe write into S3 using the below query with input_table_1 size is 13 Gb and input_table_2 as 1 Mb
input_table_1 has columns account, membership and
input_table_2 has columns role, id , membership_id, quantity, start_date
SELECT
/*+ BROADCASTJOIN(input_table_2) */
account,
role,
id,
quantity,
cast(start_date AS string) AS start_date
FROM
input_table_1
INNER JOIN
input_table_2
ON array_contains(input_table_1.membership, input_table_2.membership_id)
where membership array contains list of member_ids
This dataset write using Spark dataframe is generating around 1.1TiB of data in S3 with around 700 billion records.
We identified that there are duplicates and used dataframe.distinct.write.parquet("s3path") to remove the duplicates . The record count is reduced to almost 1/3rd of the previous total count with around 200 billion rows but we observed that the output size in S3 is now 17.2 TiB .
I am very confused how this can happen.
I have used the following spark conf settings
spark.sql.shuffle.partitions=20000
I have tried to do a coalesce and write to s3 but it did not work.
Please suggest if this is expected and when can be done ?
There's two sides to this:
1) Physical translation of distinct in Spark
The Spark catalyst optimiser turns a distinct operation into an aggregation by means of the ReplaceDeduplicateWithAggregate rule (Note: in the execution plan distinct is named Deduplicate).
This basically means df.distinct() on all columns is translated into a groupBy on all columns with an empty aggregation:
df.groupBy(df.columns:_*).agg(Map.empty).
Spark uses a HashPartitioner when shuffling data for a groupBy on respective columns. Since the groupBy clause in your case contains all columns (well, implicitly, but it does), you're more or less randomly shuffling data to different nodes in the cluster.
Increasing spark.sql.shuffle.partitions in this case is not going to help.
Now on to the 2nd side, why does this affect the size of your parquet files so much?
2) Compression in parquet files
Parquet is a columnar format, will say your data is organised in columns rather than row by row. This allows for powerful compression if data is adequately laid-out & ordered. E.g. if a column contains the same value for a number of consecutive rows, it is enough to write that value just once and make a note of the number of repetitions (a strategy called run length encoding). But Parquet also uses various other compression strategies.
Unfortunately, data ends up pretty randomly in your case after shuffling to remove duplicates. The original partitioning of input_table_1 was much better fitted.
Solutions
There's no single answer how to solve this, but here's a few pointers I'd suggest doing next:
What's causing the duplicates? Could these be removed upstream? Or is there a problem with the join condition causing duplicates?
A simple solution is to just repartition the dataset after distinct to match the partitioning of your input data. Adding a secondary sorting (sortWithinPartition) is likely going to give you even better compression. However, this comes at the cost of an additional shuffle!
As #matt-andruff pointed out below, you can also achieve this in SQL using cluster by. Obviously, that also requires you to move the distinct keyword into your SQL statement.
Write your own deduplication algorithm as Spark Aggregator and group / shuffle the data just once in a meaningful way.
Let's say I have the following join (modified from Spark documentation):
impressionsWithWatermark.join(
clicksWithWatermark,
expr("""
clickAdId = impressionAdId AND
clickTime >= cast(impressionTime as date) AND
clickTime <= cast(impressionTime as date) + interval 1 day
""")
)
Assume that both tables have trillions of rows for 2 years of data. I think that joining everything from both tables is unnecessary. What I want to do is create subsets, similar to this: create 365 * 2 * 2 smaller dataframes so that there is 1 dataframe for each day of each table for 2 years, then create 365 * 2 join queries and take a union of them. But that is inefficient. I am not sure how to do it properly. I think I should add table.repartition(factor/multiple of 365 * 2) for both tables and add write.partitionBy(cast(impressionTime as date), cast(impressionTime as date)) to the streamwriter, and set the number of executors times cores to a factor or multiple of 365 * 2.
What is a proper way to do this? Does Spark analyze the query and optimizes it so that the entries from a single day are automatically put in the same partition? What if I am not joining all records from the same day, but rather from the same hour but there are very few records from 11pm to 1am? Does Spark know that it is most efficient to partition by day or will it be even more efficient?
Initially just trying to specify what i have understood from your question. You have two tables with two years worth of data and it has around trillion records in both of them. You want to join them efficiently based on the timeframe that you provided . for example could be for any specific month of any year or could be any specific custom dates but it should only read that much data and not all the data.
Now to answer your question you can do something as below:
First of all when you are writing data to create the table , you should partition the table by day column so that you have each day data in separate directory/partition for both the tables. Spark won't do that by default for you. You will have to decide that based on your dataset.
Second now when you are reading the data and performing the joins it should not be done on whole table. You will have to read the data from the specific partitions only by applying filter condition on the dataframe so that spark would apply partition pruning and it would read only the partitions that satisfy the condition in filter clause.
Once you have filtered the data at the time of reading from the table and stored it in a dataframe then you should join those dataframe based on the key relationship and that would be most efficient and performant way of doing it at first shot.
If it is still not fast enough you can look at bucketing your data along with partition but in most cases it is not required.
I wonder if using multiple columns while writing a Spark DataFrame in spark makes future read slower?
I know partitioning with critical columns for future filtering improves read performance, but what would be the effect of having multiple columns, even the ones not usable for filtering?
A sample would be:
(ordersDF
.write
.format("parquet")
.mode("overwrite")
.partitionBy("CustomerId", "OrderDate", .....) # <----------- add many columns
.save("/storage/Orders_parquet"))
Yes as spark have to do shuffle and short data to make so may partition .
As there will have many combination of partition key .
ie
suppose CustomerId have unique values 10
suppose orderDate have unique values 10
suppose Orderhave unique values 10
Number of partition will be 10 *10*10
In this small scenario we have 1000 bucket need to be created.
so hell loot of shuffle and short >> more time .
In python or R, there are ways to slice DataFrame using index.
For example, in pandas:
df.iloc[5:10,:]
Is there a similar way in pyspark to slice data based on location of rows?
Short Answer
If you already have an index column (suppose it was called 'id') you can filter using pyspark.sql.Column.between:
from pyspark.sql.functions import col
df.where(col("id").between(5, 10))
If you don't already have an index column, you can add one yourself and then use the code above. You should have some ordering built in to your data based on some other columns (orderBy("someColumn")).
Full Explanation
No it is not easily possible to slice a Spark DataFrame by index, unless the index is already present as a column.
Spark DataFrames are inherently unordered and do not support random access. (There is no concept of a built-in index as there is in pandas). Each row is treated as an independent collection of structured data, and that is what allows for distributed parallel processing. Thus, any executor can take any chunk of the data and process it without regard for the order of the rows.
Now obviously it is possible to perform operations that do involve ordering (lead, lag, etc), but these will be slower because it requires spark to shuffle data between the executors. (The shuffling of data is typically one of the slowest components of a spark job.)
Related/Futher Reading
PySpark DataFrames - way to enumerate without converting to Pandas?
PySpark - get row number for each row in a group
how to add Row id in pySpark dataframes
You can convert your spark dataframe to koalas dataframe.
Koalas is a dataframe by Databricks to give an almost pandas like interface to spark dataframe. See here https://pypi.org/project/koalas/
import databricks.koalas as ks
kdf = ks.DataFrame(your_spark_df)
kdf[0:500] # your indexes here
I have bunch of hive tables.
I want to:
Pull the tables into a pyspark DF.
Do a UDF on them.
Join 4 tables based on customer id.
Is there a concept of indexing in spark to speed up the operation?
If so whats the command?
How do I create index on dataframe?
I understand your problem but the thing is, you acquire the data at the same time you process them. Therefore, calculating an index before joining is useless as it will take take more time to first create the index.
If you have several write operation, you may want to cache your data to speed up but otherwise, the index is not the solution to investigate.
There is maybe another thing you can try : df.repartition.
This will create partition on your df according to one column. But I have no idea if it can help.