I am new to Spark/ Spark Cassandra Connector. We are trying spark for the first time in our team and we are using spark cassandra connector to connect to cassandra Database.
I wrote a query which is using a heavy table of the database and I saw that Spark Task didn't start until the query to the table fetched all the records.
It is taking more than 3 hours just to fetch all the records from the database.
To get the data from the DB we use.
CassandraJavaUtil.javaFunctions(sparkContextManager.getJavaSparkContext(SOURCE).sc())
.cassandraTable(keyspaceName, tableName);
Is there a way to tell spark to start working even if all the data didn't finish to download ?
Is there an option to tell spark-cassandra-connector to use more threads for the fetch ?
thanks,
kokou.
If you look at the Spark UI, how many partitions is your table scan creating? I just did something like this and I found that Spark was creating too many partitions for the scan and it was taking much longer as a result. The way I decreased the time on my job was by setting the configuration parameter spark.cassandra.input.split.size_in_mb to a value higher than the default. In my case it took a 20 minute job down to about four minutes. There are also a couple more Cassandra read specific Spark variables that you can set found here.
These stackoverflow questions are what I referenced originally, I hope they help you out as well.
Iterate large Cassandra table in small chunks
Set number of tasks on Cassandra table scan
EDIT:
After doing some performance testing with regards to fiddling with some Spark configuration parameters, I found that Spark was creating far too many table partitions when I wasn't giving the Spark executors enough memory. In my case, upping the memory by a gigabyte was enough to render the input split size parameter unnecessary. If you can't give the executors more memory, you may still need to set spark.cassandra.input.split.size_in_mbhigher as a form of workaround.
Related
I need to run 2 million queries against a three columns table t (s,p,o) which size is 10 billions rows. The data type of each column is string.
Only two types of queries:
select s p o from t where s = param
select s p o from t where o = param
If I store the table in a Postgresql database takes 6 hours using a Java ThreadPoolExecutor.
Do you think Spark can speed up the queries processing even more?
What would be the best strategy? These are my ideas:
Load the table into a dataframe and launch the queries against the dataframe.
Load the table into a parquet database and launch the queries against this database.
Use Spark 2.4 to launch queries against the Postgresql database instead of querying directly.
Use Spark 3.0 to launch queries against the database loaded into PG-Strom, an extension module of PostgreSQL with GPU support.
Thanks,
Using Apache Spark on top of the existing MySQL or PostgresSQL server(s) (without the need to export or even stream data to Spark or Hadoop) can increase query performance more than ten times. Using multiple MySQL servers (replication or Percona XtraDB Cluster) gives us an additional performance increase for some queries. You can also use the Spark cache function to cache the whole MySQL query results table.
The idea is simple: Spark can read MySQL or PostgresSQL data via JDBC and can also execute SQL queries, so we can connect it directly to DB's and run the queries. Why is this faster? For long-running (i.e., reporting or BI) queries, it can be much faster as Spark is a massively parallel system. For example, MySQL can only use one CPU core per query, whereas Spark can use all cores on all cluster nodes.
But I recommend you use No-SQL(HBase, Cassandra,...) or New-SQL solutions for your analyses because they have better performance when the scale of your data increase.
Static Data? Spark; Otherwise tune Postgres
If the 10 billion rows are static or rarely updated, your best bet is going to be using Spark with appropriate partitions. The magic happens with parallelization, so the more cores you have, the better. You want to aim for partitions that are about half a gig in size each.
Determine the size of the data by running SELECT pg_size_pretty( pg_total_relation_size('tablename')); Divide the result by the number of cores available to Spark until you get between 1/8 and 3/4 gig.
Save as parquet if you really have static data or if you want to recover from a failure quickly.
If the source data are updated frequently, you're going to want to add indices in Postgres. It could be as straightforward as adding an index on each column. Partitioning in Postgres would also help.
Stick to Postgres. Newer databases are not appropriate for structured data such as yours. There are parallelization options. Aurora, if you're on AWS.
PG-Strom is not going to work for you here. You have simple data with few columns. Getting them into and out of a GPU is going to slow you down too much.
Can anyone please explain the internal working of spark when reading data from one table and writing it to another in cassandra.
Here is my use case:
I am ingesting data coming in from an IOT platform into cassandra through a kafka topic. I have a small python script that parses each message from kafka to get the tablename it belongs to, prepares a query and writes it to cassandra using datastax's cassandra-driver for python. With that script I am able to ingest around 300000 records per min into cassandra. However my incoming data rate is 510000 records per minute so kafka consumer lag keeps on increasing.
Python script is already making concurrent calls to cassandra. If I increase the number of python executors, cassandra-driver starts failing because cassandra nodes become unavailable to it. I am assumin there is a limit of cassandra calls per sec that I am hitting there. Here is the error message that I get:
ERROR Operation failed: ('Unable to complete the operation against any hosts', {<Host: 10.128.1.3 datacenter1>: ConnectionException('Pool is shutdown',), <Host: 10.128.1.1 datacenter1>: ConnectionException('Pool is shutdown',)})"
Recently, I ran a pyspark job to copy data from a couple of columns in one table to another. The table had around 168 million records in it. Pyspark job completed in around 5 hours. So it processed over 550000 records per min.
Here is the pyspark code I am using:
df = spark.read\
.format("org.apache.spark.sql.cassandra")\
.options(table=sourcetable, keyspace=sourcekeyspace)\
.load().cache()
df.createOrReplaceTempView("data")
query = ("select dev_id,datetime,DATE_FORMAT(datetime,'yyyy-MM-dd') as day, " + field + " as value from data " )
vgDF = spark.sql(query)
vgDF.show(50)
vgDF.write\
.format("org.apache.spark.sql.cassandra")\
.mode('append')\
.options(table=newtable, keyspace=newkeyspace)\
.save()
Versions:
Cassandra 3.9.
Spark 2.1.0.
Datastax's spark-cassandra-connector 2.0.1
Scala version 2.11
Cluster:
Spark setup with 3 workers and 1 master node.
3 worker nodes also have a cassandra cluster installed. (each cassandra node with one spark worker node)
Each worker was allowed 10 GB ram and 3 cores.
So I am wondering:
Does spark read all the data from cassandra first and then writes it to the new table or is there some kind of optimization in spark cassandra connector that allows it to move the data around cassandra tables without reading all the records?
If I replace my python script with a spark streaming job in which I parse the packet to get the table name for cassandra, will that help me ingest data more quickly into cassandra?
Spark connector is optimized because it parallelize processing and reading/inserting data into nodes that are owns the data. You may get better throughput by using Cassandra Spark Connector, but this will require more resources.
Talking about your task - 300000 inserts/minute is 5000/second, and this is not very big number frankly speaking - you can increase throughput by putting different optimizations:
Using asynchronous calls to submit requests. You only need to make sure that you submit more requests that could be handled by one connection (but you can also increase this number - I'm not sure how to do it in Python, but please check Java driver doc to get an idea).
use correct consistency level (LOCAL_ONE should give you very good performance)
use correct load balancing policy
you can run several copies of your script in parallel, making sure that they are all in the same Kafka consumer group.
I am trying to "train" a DecisionTreeClassifier using Apache Spark running in a cluster in Amazon EMR. Even though I can see that there are around 50 Executors added and that the features are created by querying a Postgres database using SparkSQL and stored in a DataFrame.
The DesisionTree fit method takes for many hours even though the Dataset is not that big (10.000 db entries with a couple of hundreds of bytes each row).I can see that there is only one task for this so I assume this is the reason that it's been so slow.
Where should I look for the reason that this is running in one task?
Is it the way that I retrieve the data?
I am sorry if this is a bit vague but I don't know if the code that retrieves the data is relevant, or is it a parameter in the algorithm (although I didn't find anything online), or is it just Spark tuning?
I would appreciate any direction!
Thanks in advance.
Spark relies on data locality. It seems that all the data is located in a single place. Hence spark uses a single partition to process it. You could apply a repartition or state the number of partitions you would like to use at load time. I would also look into the decision tree Api and see if you can set the number of partitions for it specifically.
Basically, partitions are your level of parallelism.
I am fairly new to Apache Spark. I have been using it for several months, but this is my first project that uses it.
I use Spark to compute dynamic reports from data, stored in a NoSQL database (Cassandra). So far I have created several reports and they are computed correctly. Inside them I use DataFrame .unionAll(), .join(), .count(), .map(), etc.
I am running a 1.4.1 Spark cluster on my local machine with the following setup:
export SPARK_WORKER_INSTANCES=6
export SPARK_WORKER_CORES=8
export SPARK_WORKER_MEMORY=1g
I have also populated the database with test data which is around 10-12k records per table.
By using the driver's web UI (http://localhost:4040/), I have noticed that the jobs are taking 40s-50s to execute, so lately I have been researching ways to tune Apache Spark and the jobs.
I have configured Spark to use the KryoSerializer, I have set the spark.io.compression.codec to lzf, I have optimized the jobs as much as I can and as much as my knowledge allows me to.
This led to the jobs taking 20s-30s to compute (which I think is a good improvement). The problem is that because this is my first Spark project, I have no baseline to compare the jobs times, so I have no idea if the execution is slow or fast and whether there is some problem in the code or with the Spark config.
What is the best way to proceed? Is there a graph or benchmark that shows how much time an action with N data should take?
You have to use hive . On top of hive you can put spark . After doing this create temp table in hive for Cassandra table you can perform all type of aggregation and filtering . After doing this you can use hive jdbc connection to get result . It will give fast result .
I am using Spark SQL actually hiveContext.sql() which uses group by queries and I am running into OOM issues. So thinking of increasing value of spark.sql.shuffle.partitions from 200 default to 1000 but it is not helping.
I believe this partition will share data shuffle load so more the partitions less data to hold. I am new to Spark. I am using Spark 1.4.0 and I have around 1TB of uncompressed data to process using hiveContext.sql() group by queries.
If you're running out of memory on the shuffle, try setting spark.sql.shuffle.partitions to 2001.
Spark uses a different data structure for shuffle book-keeping when the number of partitions is greater than 2000:
private[spark] object MapStatus {
def apply(loc: BlockManagerId, uncompressedSizes: Array[Long]): MapStatus = {
if (uncompressedSizes.length > 2000) {
HighlyCompressedMapStatus(loc, uncompressedSizes)
} else {
new CompressedMapStatus(loc, uncompressedSizes)
}
}
...
I really wish they would let you configure this independently.
By the way, I found this information in a Cloudera slide deck.
OK so I think your issue is more general. It's not specific to Spark SQL, it's a general problem with Spark where it ignores the number of partitions you tell it when the files are few. Spark seems to have the same number of partitions as the number of files on HDFS, unless you call repartition. So calling repartition ought to work, but has the caveat of causing a shuffle somewhat unnecessarily.
I raised this question a while ago and have still yet to get a good answer :(
Spark: increase number of partitions without causing a shuffle?
It's actually depends on your data and your query, if Spark must load 1Tb, there is something wrong on your design.
Use the superbe web UI to see the DAG, mean how Spark is translating your SQL query to jobs/stages and tasks.
Useful metrics are "Input" and "Shuffle".
Partition your data (Hive / directory layout like /year=X/month=X)
Use spark CLUSTER BY feature, to work per data partition
Use ORC / Parquet file format because they provide "Push-down filter", useless data is not loaded to Spark
Analyze Spark History to see how Spark is reading data
Also, OOM could happen on your driver?
-> this is another issue, the driver will collect at the end the data you want. If you ask too much data, the driver will OOM, try limiting your query, or write another table (Spark syntax CREATE TABLE ...AS).
I came across this post from Cloudera about Hive Partitioning. Check out the "Pointers" section talking about number of partitions and number of files in each partition resulting in overloading the name node, which might cause OOM.