Let's say I have two RDD-s, where one is a map of the other. For example:
RDD[Double] N;
RDD[Double] logN = N.map(x => Math.Log(x));
And I want to operate on matching pairs from both of them.
Something like this:
RDD[Double] NlogN = (N,logN).map((x,y) => x*y);
Is this kind of an operation available in spark?
You are looking for zip
N.zip(logN).map { case (x, y) => ... }
Related
List(1,2,3,4..100)==> List((1,2),(2,3),(3,4)...(100,101))==>List(3,5,7,....201)
scala> x.map(x=>x,x+1).map(x=>x._1+x._2)
:26: error: too many arguments (2) for method map: (f: Int => B)(implicit bf: scala.collection.generic.CanBuildFrom[List[Int],B,That])That
x.map(x=>x,x+1).map(x=>x._1+x._2)
am trying to transform the 1 to 100 values but am getting the above error.Is there any issue with any the code?
your map function's return is incorrect.
try this:
input.map(x => (x,x+1)).map(x => x._1 + x._2)
Although, I don't see the need for two map functions when you can do it in one like this:
input.map(x => x + x + 1)
the above expression will also give you the same result.
DataSet#foreach(f) applies the function f to each row in the dataset. In a clustered environment, the data is split across the cluster. How can the results from each of these functions be collected?
For example, say the function would count the number of characters stored in each row. How can you create a DataSet or RDD that contains the results of each of these functions applied to each row?
The definition for foreach looks something like :
final def foreach(f: (A) ⇒ Unit): Unit
f : The function that is applied for its side-effect to every element.
The result of function f is discarded
foreach in Scala is generally used to denote the usage of a function that involves a side-effect, e.g. printing to STDOUT.
If you want to return something by applying a particular function, you'll have to use map
final def map[B](f: (A) ⇒ B): List[B]
I copied the syntax from the documentation for List but it'll be something similar for RDDs as well.
As you can see, it works the function f on datatype A and returns a collection of datatype B where A and B can be the same data type as well.
val rdd = sc.parallelize(Array(
"String1",
"String2",
"String3" ))
scala> rdd.foreach(x => (x, x.length) )
// Nothing happens
rdd.map(x => (x, x.length) ).collect
// Array[(String, Int)] = Array((String1,7), (String2,7), (String3,7))
I'm looking for a way to split an RDD into two or more RDDs. The closest I've seen is Scala Spark: Split collection into several RDD? which is still a single RDD.
If you're familiar with SAS, something like this:
data work.split1, work.split2;
set work.preSplit;
if (condition1)
output work.split1
else if (condition2)
output work.split2
run;
which resulted in two distinct data sets. It would have to be immediately persisted to get the results I intend...
It is not possible to yield multiple RDDs from a single transformation*. If you want to split a RDD you have to apply a filter for each split condition. For example:
def even(x): return x % 2 == 0
def odd(x): return not even(x)
rdd = sc.parallelize(range(20))
rdd_odd, rdd_even = (rdd.filter(f) for f in (odd, even))
If you have only a binary condition and computation is expensive you may prefer something like this:
kv_rdd = rdd.map(lambda x: (x, odd(x)))
kv_rdd.cache()
rdd_odd = kv_rdd.filter(lambda kv: kv[1]).keys()
rdd_even = kv_rdd.filter(lambda kv: not kv[1]).keys()
It means only a single predicate computation but requires additional pass over all data.
It is important to note that as long as an input RDD is properly cached and there no additional assumptions regarding data distribution there is no significant difference when it comes to time complexity between repeated filter and for-loop with nested if-else.
With N elements and M conditions number of operations you have to perform is clearly proportional to N times M. In case of for-loop it should be closer to (N + MN) / 2 and repeated filter is exactly NM but at the end of the day it is nothing else than O(NM). You can see my discussion** with Jason Lenderman to read about some pros-and-cons.
At the very high level you should consider two things:
Spark transformations are lazy, until you execute an action your RDD is not materialized
Why does it matter? Going back to my example:
rdd_odd, rdd_even = (rdd.filter(f) for f in (odd, even))
If later I decide that I need only rdd_odd then there is no reason to materialize rdd_even.
If you take a look at your SAS example to compute work.split2 you need to materialize both input data and work.split1.
RDDs provide a declarative API. When you use filter or map it is completely up to Spark engine how this operation is performed. As long as the functions passed to transformations are side effects free it creates multiple possibilities to optimize a whole pipeline.
At the end of the day this case is not special enough to justify its own transformation.
This map with filter pattern is actually used in a core Spark. See my answer to How does Sparks RDD.randomSplit actually split the RDD and a relevant part of the randomSplit method.
If the only goal is to achieve a split on input it is possible to use partitionBy clause for DataFrameWriter which text output format:
def makePairs(row: T): (String, String) = ???
data
.map(makePairs).toDF("key", "value")
.write.partitionBy($"key").format("text").save(...)
* There are only 3 basic types of transformations in Spark:
RDD[T] => RDD[T]
RDD[T] => RDD[U]
(RDD[T], RDD[U]) => RDD[W]
where T, U, W can be either atomic types or products / tuples (K, V). Any other operation has to be expressed using some combination of the above. You can check the original RDD paper for more details.
** https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/91928/discussion-between-zero323-and-jason-lenderman
*** See also Scala Spark: Split collection into several RDD?
As other posters mentioned above, there is no single, native RDD transform that splits RDDs, but here are some "multiplex" operations that can efficiently emulate a wide variety of "splitting" on RDDs, without reading multiple times:
http://silex.freevariable.com/latest/api/#com.redhat.et.silex.rdd.multiplex.MuxRDDFunctions
Some methods specific to random splitting:
http://silex.freevariable.com/latest/api/#com.redhat.et.silex.sample.split.SplitSampleRDDFunctions
Methods are available from open source silex project:
https://github.com/willb/silex
A blog post explaining how they work:
http://erikerlandson.github.io/blog/2016/02/08/efficient-multiplexing-for-spark-rdds/
def muxPartitions[U :ClassTag](n: Int, f: (Int, Iterator[T]) => Seq[U],
persist: StorageLevel): Seq[RDD[U]] = {
val mux = self.mapPartitionsWithIndex { case (id, itr) =>
Iterator.single(f(id, itr))
}.persist(persist)
Vector.tabulate(n) { j => mux.mapPartitions { itr => Iterator.single(itr.next()(j)) } }
}
def flatMuxPartitions[U :ClassTag](n: Int, f: (Int, Iterator[T]) => Seq[TraversableOnce[U]],
persist: StorageLevel): Seq[RDD[U]] = {
val mux = self.mapPartitionsWithIndex { case (id, itr) =>
Iterator.single(f(id, itr))
}.persist(persist)
Vector.tabulate(n) { j => mux.mapPartitions { itr => itr.next()(j).toIterator } }
}
As mentioned elsewhere, these methods do involve a trade-off of memory for speed, because they operate by computing entire partition results "eagerly" instead of "lazily." Therefore, it is possible for these methods to run into memory problems on large partitions, where more traditional lazy transforms will not.
One way is to use a custom partitioner to partition the data depending upon your filter condition. This can be achieved by extending Partitioner and implementing something similar to the RangePartitioner.
A map partitions can then be used to construct multiple RDDs from the partitioned RDD without reading all the data.
val filtered = partitioned.mapPartitions { iter => {
new Iterator[Int](){
override def hasNext: Boolean = {
if(rangeOfPartitionsToKeep.contains(TaskContext.get().partitionId)) {
false
} else {
iter.hasNext
}
}
override def next():Int = iter.next()
}
Just be aware that the number of partitions in the filtered RDDs will be the same as the number in the partitioned RDD so a coalesce should be used to reduce this down and remove the empty partitions.
If you split an RDD using the randomSplit API call, you get back an array of RDDs.
If you want 5 RDDs returned, pass in 5 weight values.
e.g.
val sourceRDD = val sourceRDD = sc.parallelize(1 to 100, 4)
val seedValue = 5
val splitRDD = sourceRDD.randomSplit(Array(1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0), seedValue)
splitRDD(1).collect()
res7: Array[Int] = Array(1, 6, 11, 12, 20, 29, 40, 62, 64, 75, 77, 83, 94, 96, 100)
I am learning Spark by example, but I don't know the good way to understand API. For instance, the very classic word count example:
val input = sc.textFile("README.md")
val words = input.flatMap(x => x.split(" "))
val result = words.map(x => (x, 1)).reduceByKey((x, y) => x + y)
When I read the reduceByKey API, I see:
def reduceByKey(func: (V, V) ⇒ V): RDD[(K, V)]
The API states: Merge the values for each key using an associative reduce function. This will also perform the merging locally on each mapper before sending results to a reducer, similarly to a "combiner" in MapReduce. Output will be hash-partitioned with the existing partitioner/ parallelism level.
In the programming guide: When called on a dataset of (K, V) pairs, returns a dataset of (K, V) pairs where the values for each key are aggregated using the given reduce function func, which must be of type (V,V) => V. Like in groupByKey, the number of reduce tasks is configurable through an optional second argument.
Ok, through the example I know (x, y) is (V, V), and that should be the value part of the map. I give a function to compute the V and I get RDD[(K, V)]. My questions are: In such example, in reduceByKey(func: (V, V) ⇒ V), why 2 V? The 1st and 2nd V in (V, V) is same or not?
I guess I ask this question and therefore use the question topic due to that I still don't know how to correctly read the API, or I just miss some even basic Spark concept?!
in the code below:
reduceByKey((x, y) => x + y)
you could read for more clarity, something like this:
reduceByKey((sum, addend) => sum + addend)
so, for every key, you iterate that function fore every element with that key.
Basically, (func: (V, V) ⇒ V), means that you have a function with 2 input of a certain type (let's say Int) which returns a single output of the same type.
Usually the data sets will be of the form ("key1",val11),("key2",val21),("key1",val12),("key2",val22)...so on
There will be the same key with multiple values in the RDD[(K,V)]
When you use the reduceByKey . For each values in the key the function will be applied.
For example consider the following program
val data = Array(("key1",2),("key1",20),("key2",21),("key1",2),("key2",10),("key2",33))
val rdd = sc.parallelize(data)
val res = rdd.reduceByKey((x,y) => x+y)
res.foreach(println)
You will get the output as
(key2,64)
(key1,24)
Here the Sequence of values are passed to the function . For key1 -> (2,20,2)
In the end , You will have a single value for each key.
You could use spark shell to try out the APIs.
I'm trying to create an informative report according to results.
I currently have a .foreach loop iterating over a list, and writes the report.
The code looks like:
result.foreach {
tupleResult =>
tupleResult._3 match {
case "FirstTest" =>
language1 = createReport(tupleResult)
case "SecondTest" =>
language2 = createReport(tupleResult)
case "ThirdTest" =>
language3 = createReport(tupleResult)
}
finalReport = ""
}
Each "createReport" is a method which creates a one line String into the relevant language var.
I want each iteration to add a different line in the "finalReport" string.
Example of "finalReport":
Report consists of the following:
1) language1
2) language2
3) language3
The question is how to create the different variables as different lines of the same "finalReport" string.
The more idiomatic scala way to do it would be to not do several things at once and also mutate state, but instead see it as separate operations/expressions. Something like this for example:
val sortedResults = result.sortBy(_._3 match {
case "FirstTest" => 1
case "SecondTest" => 2
case "ThirdTest" => 3
})
val reportLines = sortedResults.map(result => createReport(result._3))
val finalReport = reportLines.mkString("\n")
Associating an ordering to the test strings may prove a solution, for instance like this,
val ord = Array("FirstTest","SecondTest","ThirdTest").zipWithIndex.toMap
Then we can generate the parts of the report, and finally sort them by the defined ordering,
val finalReport = result.map { tRes => (ord.get(tRes._3), createReport(tRes)) }
.sortBy(_._1)
.map(_._2)
.mkString("\n")