I have a dataframe and I want to randomize rows in the dataframe. I tried sampling the data by giving a fraction of 1, which didn't work (interestingly this works in Pandas).
It works in Pandas because taking sample in local systems is typically solved by shuffling data. Spark from the other hand avoids shuffling by performing linear scans over the data. It means that sampling in Spark only randomizes members of the sample not an order.
You can order DataFrame by a column of random numbers:
from pyspark.sql.functions import rand
df = sc.parallelize(range(20)).map(lambda x: (x, )).toDF(["x"])
df.orderBy(rand()).show(3)
## +---+
## | x|
## +---+
## | 2|
## | 7|
## | 14|
## +---+
## only showing top 3 rows
but it is:
expensive - because it requires full shuffle and it something you typically want to avoid.
suspicious - because order of values in a DataFrame is not something you can really depend on in non-trivial cases and since DataFrame doesn't support indexing it is relatively useless without collecting.
This code works for me without any RDD operations:
import pyspark.sql.functions as F
df = df.select("*").orderBy(F.rand())
Here is a more elaborated example:
import pyspark.sql.functions as F
# Example: create a Dataframe for the example
pandas_df = pd.DataFrame(([1,2],[3,1],[4,2],[7,2],[32,7],[123,3]),columns=["id","col1"])
df = sqlContext.createDataFrame(pandas_df)
df = df.select("*").orderBy(F.rand())
df.show()
+---+----+
| id|col1|
+---+----+
| 1| 2|
| 3| 1|
| 4| 2|
| 7| 2|
| 32| 7|
|123| 3|
+---+----+
df.select("*").orderBy(F.rand()).show()
+---+----+
| id|col1|
+---+----+
| 7| 2|
|123| 3|
| 3| 1|
| 4| 2|
| 32| 7|
| 1| 2|
+---+----+
Related
I would like to get the first and last row of each partition in spark (I'm using pyspark). How do I go about this?
In my code I repartition my dataset based on a key column using:
mydf.repartition(keyColumn).sortWithinPartitions(sortKey)
Is there a way to get the first row and last row for each partition?
Thanks
I would highly advise against working with partitions directly. Spark does a lot of DAG optimisation, so when you try executing specific functionality on each partition, all your assumptions about the partitions and their distribution might be completely false.
You seem to however have a keyColumn and sortKey, so then I'd just suggest to do the following:
import pyspark
import pyspark.sql.functions as f
w_asc = pyspark.sql.Window.partitionBy(keyColumn).orderBy(f.asc(sortKey))
w_desc = pyspark.sql.Window.partitionBy(keyColumn).orderBy(f.desc(sortKey))
res_df = mydf. \
withColumn("rn_asc", f.row_number().over(w_asc)). \
withColumn("rn_desc", f.row_number().over(w_desc)). \
where("rn_asc = 1 or rn_desc = 1")
The resulting dataframe will have 2 additional columns, where rn_asc=1 indicates the first row and rn_desc=1 indicates the last row.
Scala: I think the repartition is not by come key column but it requires the integer how may partition you want to set. I made a way to select the first and last row by using the Window function of the spark.
First, this is my test data.
+---+-----+
| id|value|
+---+-----+
| 1| 1|
| 1| 2|
| 1| 3|
| 1| 4|
| 2| 1|
| 2| 2|
| 2| 3|
| 3| 1|
| 3| 3|
| 3| 5|
+---+-----+
Then, I use the Window function twice, because I cannot know the last row easily but the reverse is quite easy.
import org.apache.spark.sql.expressions.Window
val a = Window.partitionBy("id").orderBy("value")
val d = Window.partitionBy("id").orderBy(col("value").desc)
val df = spark.read.option("header", "true").csv("test.csv")
df.withColumn("marker", when(rank.over(a) === 1, "Y").otherwise("N"))
.withColumn("marker", when(rank.over(d) === 1, "Y").otherwise(col("marker")))
.filter(col("marker") === "Y")
.drop("marker").show
The final result is then,
+---+-----+
| id|value|
+---+-----+
| 3| 5|
| 3| 1|
| 1| 4|
| 1| 1|
| 2| 3|
| 2| 1|
+---+-----+
Here is another approach using mapPartitions from RDD API. We iterate over the elements of each partition until we reach the end. I would expect this iteration to be very fast since we skip all the elements of the partition except the two edges. Here is the code:
df = spark.createDataFrame([
["Tom", "a"],
["Dick", "b"],
["Harry", "c"],
["Elvis", "d"],
["Elton", "e"],
["Sandra", "f"]
], ["name", "toy"])
def get_first_last(it):
first = last = next(it)
for last in it:
pass
# Attention: if first equals last by reference return only one!
if first is last:
return [first]
return [first, last]
# coalesce here is just for demonstration
first_last_rdd = df.coalesce(2).rdd.mapPartitions(get_first_last)
spark.createDataFrame(first_last_rdd, ["name", "toy"]).show()
# +------+---+
# | name|toy|
# +------+---+
# | Tom| a|
# | Harry| c|
# | Elvis| d|
# |Sandra| f|
# +------+---+
PS: Odd positions will contain the first partition element and the even ones the last item. Also note that the number of results will be (numPartitions * 2) - numPartitionsWithOneItem which I expect to be relatively small therefore you shouldn't bother about the cost of the new createDataFrame statement.
I want to calculate the Jaro Winkler distance between two columns of a PySpark DataFrame. Jaro Winkler distance is available through pyjarowinkler package on all nodes.
pyjarowinkler works as follows:
from pyjarowinkler import distance
distance.get_jaro_distance("A", "A", winkler=True, scaling=0.1)
Output:
1.0
I am trying to write a Pandas UDF to pass two columns as Series and calculate the distance using lambda function.
Here's how I am doing it:
#pandas_udf("float", PandasUDFType.SCALAR)
def get_distance(col1, col2):
import pandas as pd
distance_df = pd.DataFrame({'column_A': col1, 'column_B': col2})
distance_df['distance'] = distance_df.apply(lambda x: distance.get_jaro_distance(str(distance_df['column_A']), str(distance_df['column_B']), winkler = True, scaling = 0.1))
return distance_df['distance']
temp = temp.withColumn('jaro_distance', get_distance(temp.x, temp.x))
I should be able to pass any two string columns in the above function.
I am getting the following output:
+---+---+---+-------------+
| x| y| z|jaro_distance|
+---+---+---+-------------+
| A| 1| 2| null|
| B| 3| 4| null|
| C| 5| 6| null|
| D| 7| 8| null|
+---+---+---+-------------+
Expected Output:
+---+---+---+-------------+
| x| y| z|jaro_distance|
+---+---+---+-------------+
| A| 1| 2| 1.0|
| B| 3| 4| 1.0|
| C| 5| 6| 1.0|
| D| 7| 8| 1.0|
+---+---+---+-------------+
I suspect this might be because str(distance_df['column_A']) is not correct. It contains the concatenated string of all row values.
While this code works for me:
#pandas_udf("float", PandasUDFType.SCALAR)
def get_distance(col):
return col.apply(lambda x: distance.get_jaro_distance(x, "A", winkler = True, scaling = 0.1))
temp = temp.withColumn('jaro_distance', get_distance(temp.x))
Output:
+---+---+---+-------------+
| x| y| z|jaro_distance|
+---+---+---+-------------+
| A| 1| 2| 1.0|
| B| 3| 4| 0.0|
| C| 5| 6| 0.0|
| D| 7| 8| 0.0|
+---+---+---+-------------+
Is there a way to do this with Pandas UDF? I'm dealing with millions of records so UDF will be expensive but still acceptable if it works. Thanks.
The error was from your function in the df.apply method, adjust it to the following should fix it:
#pandas_udf("float", PandasUDFType.SCALAR)
def get_distance(col1, col2):
import pandas as pd
distance_df = pd.DataFrame({'column_A': col1, 'column_B': col2})
distance_df['distance'] = distance_df.apply(lambda x: distance.get_jaro_distance(x['column_A'], x['column_B'], winkler = True, scaling = 0.1), axis=1)
return distance_df['distance']
However, Pandas df.apply method is not vectorised which beats the purpose why we need pandas_udf over udf in PySpark. A faster and less overhead solution is to use list comprehension to create the returning pd.Series (check this link for more discussion about Pandas df.apply and its alternatives):
from pandas import Series
#pandas_udf("float", PandasUDFType.SCALAR)
def get_distance(col1, col2):
return Series([ distance.get_jaro_distance(c1, c2, winkler=True, scaling=0.1) for c1,c2 in zip(col1, col2) ])
df.withColumn('jaro_distance', get_distance('x', 'y')).show()
+---+---+---+-------------+
| x| y| z|jaro_distance|
+---+---+---+-------------+
| AB| 1B| 2| 0.67|
| BB| BB| 4| 1.0|
| CB| 5D| 6| 0.0|
| DB|B7F| 8| 0.61|
+---+---+---+-------------+
You can union all the data frame first, partition by the same partition key after the partitions were shuffled and distributed to the worker nodes, and restore them before the pandas computing. Pls check the example where I wrote a small toolkit for this scenario: SparkyPandas
I'm trying to group by an ID column in a pyspark dataframe and sum a column depending on the value of another column.
To illustrate, consider the following dummy dataframe:
+-----+-------+---------+
| ID| type| amount|
+-----+-------+---------+
| 1| a| 55|
| 2| b| 1455|
| 2| a| 20|
| 2| b| 100|
| 3| null| 230|
+-----+-------+---------+
My desired output is:
+-----+--------+----------+----------+
| ID| sales| sales_a| sales_b|
+-----+--------+----------+----------+
| 1| 55| 55| 0|
| 2| 1575| 20| 1555|
| 3| 230| 0| 0|
+-----+--------+----------+----------+
So basically, sales will be the sum of amount, while sales_a and sales_b are the sum of amount when type is a or b respectively.
For sales, I know this could be done like this:
from pyspark.sql import functions as F
df = df.groupBy("ID").agg(F.sum("amount").alias("sales"))
For the others, I'm guessing F.when would be useful but I'm not sure how to go about it.
You could create two columns before the aggregation based off of the value of type.
df.withColumn("sales_a", F.when(col("type") == "a", col("amount"))) \
.withColumn("sales_b", F.when(col("type") == "b", col("amount"))) \
.groupBy("ID") \
.agg(F.sum("amount").alias("sales"),
F.sum("sales_a").alias("sales_a"),
F.sum("sales_b").alias("sales_b"))
from pyspark.sql import functions as F
df = df.groupBy("ID").agg(F.sum("amount").alias("sales"))
dfPivot = df.filter("type is not null").groupBy("ID").pivot("type").agg(F.sum("amount").alias("sales"))
res = df.join(dfPivot, df.id== dfPivot.id,how='left')
Then replace null with 0.
This is generic solution will work irrespective of values in type column.. so if type c is added in dataframe then it will create column _c
If I partition a data set, will it be in the correct order when I read it back? For example, consider the following pyspark code:
# read a csv
df = sql_context.read.csv(input_filename)
# add a hash column
hash_udf = udf(lambda customer_id: hash(customer_id) % 4, IntegerType())
df = df.withColumn('hash', hash_udf(df['customer_id']))
# write out to parquet
df.write.parquet(output_path, partitionBy=['hash'])
# read back the file
df2 = sql_context.read.parquet(output_path)
I am partitioning on a customer_id bucket. When I read back the whole data set, are the partitions guaranteed to be merged back together in the original insertion order?
Right now, I'm not so sure, so I'm adding a sequence column:
df = df.withColumn('seq', monotonically_increasing_id())
However, I don't know if this is redundant.
No, it's not guaranteed. Try it with even a tiny data set:
df = spark.createDataFrame([(1,'a'),(2,'b'),(3,'c'),(4,'d')],['customer_id', 'name'])
# add a hash column
hash_udf = udf(lambda customer_id: hash(customer_id) % 4, IntegerType())
df = df.withColumn('hash', hash_udf(df['customer_id']))
# write out to parquet
df.write.parquet("test", partitionBy=['hash'], mode="overwrite")
# read back the file
df2 = spark.read.parquet("test")
df.show()
+-----------+----+----+
|customer_id|name|hash|
+-----------+----+----+
| 1| a| 1|
| 2| b| 2|
| 3| c| 3|
| 4| d| 0|
+-----------+----+----+
df2.show()
+-----------+----+----+
|customer_id|name|hash|
+-----------+----+----+
| 2| b| 2|
| 1| a| 1|
| 4| d| 0|
| 3| c| 3|
+-----------+----+----+
This question already has answers here:
How to avoid duplicate columns after join?
(10 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I want to use join with 3 dataframe, but there are some columns we don't need or have some duplicate name with other dataframes, so I want to drop some columns like below:
result_df = (aa_df.join(bb_df, 'id', 'left')
.join(cc_df, 'id', 'left')
.withColumnRenamed(bb_df.status, 'user_status'))
Please note that status column is in two dataframes, i.e. aa_df and bb_df.
The above doesn't work. I also tried to use withColumn, but the new column is created, and the old column is still existed.
If you are trying to rename the status column of bb_df dataframe then you can do so while joining as
result_df = aa_df.join(bb_df.withColumnRenamed('status', 'user_status'),'id', 'left').join(cc_df, 'id', 'left')
I want to use join with 3 dataframe, but there are some columns we don't need or have some duplicate name with other dataframes
That's a fine use case for aliasing a Dataset using alias or as operators.
alias(alias: String): Dataset[T] or alias(alias: Symbol): Dataset[T]
Returns a new Dataset with an alias set. Same as as.
as(alias: String): Dataset[T] or as(alias: Symbol): Dataset[T]
Returns a new Dataset with an alias set.
(And honestly I did only now see the Symbol-based variants.)
NOTE There are two as operators, as for aliasing and as for type mapping. Consult the Dataset API.
After you've aliases a Dataset, you can reference columns using [alias].[columnName] format. This is particularly handy with joins and star column dereferencing using *.
val ds1 = spark.range(5)
scala> ds1.as('one).select($"one.*").show
+---+
| id|
+---+
| 0|
| 1|
| 2|
| 3|
| 4|
+---+
val ds2 = spark.range(10)
// Using joins with aliased datasets
// where clause is in a longer form to demo how ot reference columns by alias
scala> ds1.as('one).join(ds2.as('two)).where($"one.id" === $"two.id").show
+---+---+
| id| id|
+---+---+
| 0| 0|
| 1| 1|
| 2| 2|
| 3| 3|
| 4| 4|
+---+---+
so I want to drop some columns like below
My general recommendation is not to drop columns, but select what you want to include in the result. That makes life more predictable as you know what you get (not what you don't). I was told that our brains work by positives which could also make a point for select.
So, as you asked and I showed in the above example, the result has two columns of the same name id. The question is how to have only one.
There are at least two answers with using the variant of join operator with the join columns or condition included (as you did show in your question), but that would not answer your real question about "dropping unwanted columns", would it?
Given I prefer select (over drop), I'd do the following to have a single id column:
val q = ds1.as('one)
.join(ds2.as('two))
.where($"one.id" === $"two.id")
.select("one.*") // <-- select columns from "one" dataset
scala> q.show
+---+
| id|
+---+
| 0|
| 1|
| 2|
| 3|
| 4|
+---+
Regardless of the reasons why you asked the question (which could also be answered with the points I raised above), let me answer the (burning) question how to use withColumnRenamed when there are two matching columns (after join).
Let's assume you ended up with the following query and so you've got two id columns (per join side).
val q = ds1.as('one)
.join(ds2.as('two))
.where($"one.id" === $"two.id")
scala> q.show
+---+---+
| id| id|
+---+---+
| 0| 0|
| 1| 1|
| 2| 2|
| 3| 3|
| 4| 4|
+---+---+
withColumnRenamed won't work for this use case since it does not accept aliased column names.
scala> q.withColumnRenamed("one.id", "one_id").show
+---+---+
| id| id|
+---+---+
| 0| 0|
| 1| 1|
| 2| 2|
| 3| 3|
| 4| 4|
+---+---+
You could select the columns you're interested in as follows:
scala> q.select("one.id").show
+---+
| id|
+---+
| 0|
| 1|
| 2|
| 3|
| 4|
+---+
scala> q.select("two.*").show
+---+
| id|
+---+
| 0|
| 1|
| 2|
| 3|
| 4|
+---+
Please see the docs : withColumnRenamed()
You need to pass the name of the existing column and the new name to the function. Both of these should be strings.
result_df = aa_df.join(bb_df,'id', 'left').join(cc_df, 'id', 'left').withColumnRenamed('status', 'user_status')
If you have 'status' columns in 2 dataframes, you can use them in the join as aa_df.join(bb_df, ['id','status'], 'left') assuming aa_df and bb_df have the common column. This way you will not end up having 2 'status' columns.