I am using a table which is partitioned by load_date column and is weekly optimized with delta optimize command as source dataset for my use case.
The table schema is as shown below:
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+---------+--------+---------------+
| ID| readout_id|readout_date|load_date|item_txt| item_value_txt|
+-----------------+--------------------+------------+---------+--------+---------------+
Later this table will be pivoted on columns item_txt and item_value_txt and many operations are applied using multiple window functions as shown below:
val windowSpec = Window.partitionBy("id","readout_date")
val windowSpec1 = Window.partitionBy("id","readout_date").orderBy(col("readout_id") desc)
val windowSpec2 = Window.partitionBy("id").orderBy("readout_date")
val windowSpec3 = Window.partitionBy("id").orderBy("readout_date").rowsBetween(Window.unboundedPreceding, Window.currentRow)
val windowSpec4 = Window.partitionBy("id").orderBy("readout_date").rowsBetween(Window.unboundedPreceding, Window.currentRow-1)
These window functions are used to achieve multiple logic on the data. Even there are few joins used to process the data.
The final table is partitioned with readout_date and id and could see the performance is very poor as it take much time for 100 ids and 100 readout_date
If I am not partitioning the final table I am getting the below error.
Job aborted due to stage failure: Total size of serialized results of 129 tasks (4.0 GiB) is bigger than spark.driver.maxResultSize 4.0 GiB.
The expected count of id in production is billions and I expect much more throttling and performance issues while processing with complete data.
Below provided the cluster configuration and utilization metrics.
Please let me know if anything is wrong while doing repartitioning, any methods to improve cluster utilization, to improve performance...
Any leads Appreciated!
spark.driver.maxResultSize is just a setting you can increase it. BUT it's set at 4Gigs to warn you you are doing bad things and you should optimize your work. You are doing the correct thing asking for help to optimize.
The first thing I suggest if you care about performance get rid of the windows. The first 3 windows you use could be achieved using Groupby and this will perform better. The last two windows are definitely harder to reframe as a group by, but with some reframing of the problem you might be able to do it. The trick could be to use multiple queries instead of one. And you might think that would perform worse but i'm here to tell you if you can avoid using a window you will get better performance almost every time. Windows aren't bad things, they are a tool to be used but they do not perform well on unbounded data. (Can you do anything as an intermediate step to reduce the data the window needs to examine?) Or can you use aggregate functions to complete the work without having to use a window? You should explore your options.
Given your other answers, you should be grouping by ID not windowing by Id. And likely using aggregates(sum) by week of year/month. This would likely give you really speedy performance with the loss of some granularity. This would give you enough insight to decide to look into something deeper... or not.
If you wanted more accuracy, I'd suggest using:
Converting your null's to 0's.
val windowSpec1 = Window.partitionBy("id").orderBy(col("readout_date") asc) // asc is important as it flips the relationship so that it groups the previous nulls
Then create a running total on the SIG_XX VAL or whatever signal you want to look into. Call the new column 'null-partitions'.
This will effectively allow you to group the numbers(by null-partitions) and you can then run aggregate functions using group by to complete your calculations. Window and group by can do the same thing, windows just more expensive in how it moves data, slowing things down. Group by uses a more of the cluster to do the work and speeds up the process.
Related
I've got a process which is really bogged down by the version computing for the target delta table.
Little bit of context - there are other things that run, all contributing uniform structured dataframes that I want to persist in a delta table. Ultimately these are all compiled into lots_of_dataframes to be logged.
for i in lots_of_dataframes:
i.write.insertInto("target_delta_table")
# ... take a while to compute version
I've got in to the documentation but couldn't find any setting to ignore the version compute. I did see vacuuming, but not sure that'll do the since there will still be a lot of activity in a small window of time.
I know that I can union all of the dataframes together and just do the insert once, but I'm wondering if there is a more Databricks-ian way to do it. Like a configuration to only maintain 1 version at a time and not worry about computing for a restore.
Most probably, but it's hard to say exactly without details, the problem arise from the following facts:
Spark is lazy - the actual data processing doesn't happen until you perform action, like writing data into a destination table. So if you have a lot of transformations, etc., they will happen when you're writing data.
You're writing data in the loop - you can potentially speedup it a bit by doing a union of all tables into a single dataframe, that will be written into one go:
import functools
unioned = functools.reduce(lambda x,y: x.union(y), lots_of_dataframes)
unioned.write.insertInto("target_delta_table")
So we have a Pyspark Dataframe which has around 25k records. We are trying to perform a count/empty check on this and it is taking too long. We tried,
df.count()
df.rdd.isEmpty()
len(df.head(1))==0
Converted to Pandas and tried pandas_df.empty()
Tried the arrow option
df.cache() and df.persist() before the counts
df.repartition(n)
Tried writing the df to DBFS, but writing is also taking quite a long time(cancelled after 20 mins)
Could you please help us on what we are doing wrong.
Note : There are no duplicate values in df and we have done multiple joins to form the df
Without looking at the df.explain() it's challenging to know specifically the issue but it certainly seems like you have could have a skewed data set.
(Skew usually is represented in the Spark UI with 1 executor taking a lot longer than the other partitions to finish.) If you on a recent version of spark there are tools to help with this out of the box:
spark.sql.adaptive.enabled = true
spark.sql.adaptive.skewJoin.enabled = true
Count is not taking too long. It's taking the time it needs to, to complete what you asked spark to do. To refine what it's doing you should do things you are likely already doing, filter the data first before joining so only critical data is being transferred to the joins. Reviewing your data for Skew, and programming around it, if you can't use adaptive query.
Convince yourself this is a data issue. Limit your source [data/tables] to 1000 or 10000 records and see if it runs fast. Then one at a time, remove the limit from only one [table/data source] (and apply limit to all others) and find the table that is the source of your problem. Then study the [table/data source] and figure out how you can work around the issue.(If you can't use adaptive query to fix the issue.)
(Finally If you are using hive tables, you should make sure the table stats are up to date.)
ANALYZE TABLE mytable COMPUTE STATISTICS;
Consider the following demo schema
trades:([]symbol:`$();ccy:`$();arrivalTime:`datetime$();tradeDate:`date$(); price:`float$();nominal:`float$());
marketPrices:([]sym:`$();dateTime:`datetime$();price:`float$());
usdRates:([]currency$();dateTime:`datetime$();fxRate:`float$());
I want to write a query that gets the price, translated into USD, at the soonest possible time after arrivalTime. My beginner way of doing this has been to create intermediate tables that do some filtering and translating column names to be consistent and then using aj and ajo to join them up.
In this case there would only be 2 intermediate tables. In my actual case there are necessarily 7 intermediate tables and records counts, while not large by KDB standards, are not small either.
What is considered best practice for queries like this? It seems to me that creating all these intermediate tables is resource hungry. An alternative to the intermediate tables is 2 have a very complicated looking single query. Would that actually help things? Or is this consumption of resources just the price to pay?
For joining to the next closest time after an event take a look at this question:
KDB reverse asof join (aj) ie on next quote instead of previous one
Assuming that's what your looking for then you should be able to perform your price calculation either before or after the join (depending on the size of your tables it may be faster to do it after). Ultimately I think you will need two (potentially modified as per above) aj's (rates to marketdata, marketdata to trades).
If that's not what you're looking for then I could give some more specifics although some sample data would be useful.
My thoughts:
The more verbose/readible your code, the better for you to debug later and any future readers/users of your code.
Unless absolutely necessary, I would try and avoid creating 7 copies of the same table. If you are dealing with large tables memory could quickly become a concern. Particularly if the processing takes a long time, you could be creating large memory spikes. I try to keep to updating 1-2 variables at different stages e.g.:
res: select from trades;
res:aj[`ccy`arrivalTime;
res;
select ccy:currency, arrivalTime:dateTime, fxRate from usdRates
]
res:update someFunc fxRate from res;
Sean beat me to it, but aj for a time after/ reverse aj is relatively straight forward by switching bin to binr in the k code. See the suggested answer.
I'm not sure why you need 7 intermediary tables unless you are possibly calculating cross rates? In this case I would typically join ccy1 and ccy2 with 2 ajs to the same table and take it from there.
Although it may be unavoidable in your case if you have no control over the source data, similar column names / greater consistency across schemas is generally better. e.g. sym vs symbol
We have a system where we do some aggregations in Redshift based on some conditions. We aggregate this data with complex joins which usually takes about 10-15 minutes to complete. We then show this aggregated data on Tableau to generate our reports.
Lately, we are getting many changes regarding adding a new dimension ( which usually requires join with a new table) or get data on some more specific filter. To entertain these requests we have to change our queries everytime for each of our subprocesses.
I went through OLAP a little bit. I just want to know if it would be better in our use case or is there any better way to design our system to entertain such adhoc requests which does not require developer to change things everytime.
Thanks for the suggestions in advance.
It would work, rather it should work. Efficiency is the key here. There are few things which you need to strictly monitor to make sure your system (Redshift + Tableau) remains up and running.
Prefer Extract over Live Connection (in Tableau)
Live connection would query the system everytime someone changes the filter or refreshes the report. Since you said the dataset is large and queries are complex, prefer creating an extract. This'll make sure data is available upfront whenever someone access your dashboard .Do not forget to schedule the extract refresh, other wise the data will be stale forever.
Write efficient queries
OLAP systems are expected to query a large dataset. Make sure you write efficient queries. It's always better to first get a small dataset and join them rather than bringing everything in the memory and then joining / using where clause to filter the result.
A query like (select foo from table1 where ... )a left join (select bar from table2 where) might be the key at times where you only take out small and relevant data and then join.
Do not query infinite data.
Since this is analytical and not transactional data, have an upper bound on the data that Tableau will refresh. Historical data has an importance, but not from the time of inception of your product. Analysing the data for the past 3, 6 or 9 months can be the key rather than querying the universal dataset.
Create aggregates and let Tableau query that table, not the raw tables
Suppose you're analysing user traits. Rather than querying a raw table that captures 100 records per user per day, design a table which has just one (or two) entries per user per day and introduce a column - count which'll tell you the number of times the event has been triggered. By doing this, you'll be querying sufficiently smaller dataset but will be logically equivalent to what you were doing earlier.
As mentioned by Mr Prashant Momaya,
"While dealing with extracts,your storage requires (size)^2 of space if your dashboard refers to a data of size - **size**"
Be very cautious with whatever design you implement and do not forget to consider the most important factor - scalability
This is a typical problem and we tackled it by writing SQL generators in Python. If the definition of the metric is the same (like count(*)) but you have varying dimensions and filters you can declare it as JSON and write a generator that will produce the SQL. Example with pageviews:
{
metric: "unique pageviews"
,definition: "count(distinct cookie_id)"
,source: "public.pageviews"
,tscol: "timestamp"
,dimensions: [
['day']
,['day','country']
}
can be relatively easy translated to 2 scripts - this:
drop table metrics_daily.pageviews;
create table metrics_daily.pageviews as
select
date_trunc('day',"timestamp") as date
,count(distinct cookie_id) as "unique_pageviews"
from public.pageviews
group by 1;
and this:
drop table metrics_daily.pageviews_by_country;
create table metrics_daily.pageviews_by_country as
select
date_trunc('day',"timestamp") as date
,country
,count(distinct cookie_id) as "unique_pageviews"
from public.pageviews
group by 1,2;
the amount of complexity of a generator required to produce such sql from such config is quite low but in increases exponentially as you need to add new joins etc. It's much better to keep your dimensions in the encoded form and just use a single wide table as aggregation source, or produce views for every join you might need and use them as sources.
I have a solution that can be parallelized, but I don't (yet) have experience with hadoop/nosql, and I'm not sure which solution is best for my needs. In theory, if I had unlimited CPUs, my results should return back instantaneously. So, any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Here's what I have:
1000s of datasets
dataset keys:
all datasets have the same keys
1 million keys (this may later be 10 or 20 million)
dataset columns:
each dataset has the same columns
10 to 20 columns
most columns are numerical values for which we need to aggregate on (avg, stddev, and use R to calculate statistics)
a few columns are "type_id" columns, since in a particular query we may
want to only include certain type_ids
web application
user can choose which datasets they are interested in (anywhere from 15 to 1000)
application needs to present: key, and aggregated results (avg, stddev) of each column
updates of data:
an entire dataset can be added, dropped, or replaced/updated
would be cool to be able to add columns. But, if required, can just replace the entire dataset.
never add rows/keys to a dataset - so don't need a system with lots of fast writes
infrastructure:
currently two machines with 24 cores each
eventually, want ability to also run this on amazon
I can't precompute my aggregated values, but since each key is independent, this should be easily scalable. Currently, I have this data in a postgres database, where each dataset is in its own partition.
partitions are nice, since can easily add/drop/replace partitions
database is nice for filtering based on type_id
databases aren't easy for writing parallel queries
databases are good for structured data, and my data is not structured
As a proof of concept I tried out hadoop:
created a tab separated file per dataset for a particular type_id
uploaded to hdfs
map: retrieved a value/column for each key
reduce: computed average and standard deviation
From my crude proof-of-concept, I can see this will scale nicely, but I can see hadoop/hdfs has latency I've read that that it's generally not used for real time querying (even though I'm ok with returning results back to users in 5 seconds).
Any suggestion on how I should approach this? I was thinking of trying HBase next to get a feel for that. Should I instead look at Hive? Cassandra? Voldemort?
thanks!
Hive or Pig don't seem like they would help you. Essentially each of them compiles down to one or more map/reduce jobs, so the response cannot be within 5 seconds
HBase may work, although your infrastructure is a bit small for optimal performance. I don't understand why you can't pre-compute summary statistics for each column. You should look up computing running averages so that you don't have to do heavy weight reduces.
check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
stddev(X) = sqrt(E[X^2]- (E[X])^2)
this implies that you can get the stddev of AB by doing
sqrt(E[AB^2]-(E[AB])^2). E[AB^2] is (sum(A^2) + sum(B^2))/(|A|+|B|)
Since your data seems to be pretty much homogeneous, I would definitely take a look at Google BigQuery - You can ingest and analyze the data without a MapReduce step (on your part), and the RESTful API will help you create a web application based on your queries. In fact, depending on how you want to design your application, you could create a fairly 'real time' application.
It is serious problem without immidiate good solution in the open source space. In commercial space MPP databases like greenplum/netezza should do.
Ideally you would need google's Dremel (engine behind BigQuery). We are developing open source clone, but it will take some time...
Regardless of the engine used I think solution should include holding the whole dataset in memory - it should give an idea what size of cluster you need.
If I understand you correctly and you only need to aggregate on single columns at a time
You can store your data differently for better results
in HBase that would look something like
table per data column in today's setup and another single table for the filtering fields (type_ids)
row for each key in today's setup - you may want to think how to incorporate your filter fields into the key for efficient filtering - otherwise you'd have to do a two phase read (
column for each table in today's setup (i.e. few thousands of columns)
HBase doesn't mind if you add new columns and is sparse in the sense that it doesn't store data for columns that don't exist.
When you read a row you'd get all the relevant value which you can do avg. etc. quite easily
You might want to use a plain old database for this. It doesn't sound like you have a transactional system. As a result you can probably use just one or two large tables. SQL has problems when you need to join over large data. But since your data set doesn't sound like you need to join, you should be fine. You can have the indexes setup to find the data set and the either do in SQL or in app math.