Using Spark/Scala to attempt a "simple" query. I have a file which, after line 1 below runs, looks like this
EmpReg,EmpOT,RegPay,OTPay
Alice,Alice,400,20
Bob,Bob,300,0
Carol,Carol,450,120
Dan,Dan,400,200
Ellen,Ellen,360,40
The first and third columns (EmpReg, RegPay) come from one source and the second and third columns (EmpOT, OTPay) come from a second source. My objective is output that looks like this.
Emp,Pay
Alice,420
Bob,300
Carol,570
Dan,600
Ellen,400
Here is the code that I have been trying, at least what I have saved.
var q2 = q.join(q1, q("EmpReg") === q1("EmpOT"), "fullouter")
//q2 = q2.select("EmpReg", ($"RegPay" + $"OTPay"))
//q2 = q2.groupBy($"EmpReg".sum($"RegPay" + $"OTPay"))
var add = q2.select(($"RegPay" + $"OTPay"))
//q2 = q2.sum("RegPay", "OTPay")
//q2 = q2.groupBy("EmpReg", "EmpOT")
//var q2 = q.join(q1).where("EmpReg") === "EmpOT"))
//q2 = q2.select("EmpReg").sum("RegPay", "OTPay")
//q2.show
add.show
[q] is the first file which represents regular pay. [q1] is the second file which represents overtime pay. [q2] is the combination shown in the first example above. Primary keys are [EmpReg] and [EmpOT]. don't really need to combine [EmpReg] and [EmpOT] since they are the same, and it doesn't make any difference which I use.
I really need to add [RegPay] and [OTPay] to get [Pay], but for the life of me I can't get it to work. The lines commented out return various errors. I can add the two pay columns, and select an appropriate employee column, but can't seem to do it in one query. I am constrained to use Scala on Databricks. Othewise, I might do something like this.
select q.EmpReg as Emp, (q.RegPay + q1.OTPay) as Pay
from q join q1 on q.EmpReg = q1.EmpOT
(Why can't things ever be simple?)
You can use a similar approach as in your SQL query:
val q2 = q.join(q1, q("EmpReg") === q1("EmpOT"), "fullouter")
val add = q2.select(q("EmpReg").as("Emp"), (q("RegPay") + q1("OTPay")).as("Pay"))
Your code has this line
q2.select("EmpReg", ($"RegPay" + $"OTPay"))
which should work if you add $ before "EmpReg". You can't have both strings and columns in the select statement. This works in Python but not Scala.
Related
To find out a given keyword exists in a huge text file or not, I came up wit below two approaches.
Approach1:
def keywordExists(line):
if (line.find(“my_keyword”) > -1):
return 1
return 0
lines = sparkContext.textFile(“test_file.txt”);
isExist = lines.map(keywordExists);
sum = isExist.reduce(sum);
print(“Found” if sum>0 else “Not Found”)
Approach2:
var keyword="my_keyword"
val rdd=sparkContext.textFile("test_file.txt")
val count= rdd.filter(line=>line.contains(keyword)).count
print(“Found” if count>0 else “Not Found”)
Main difference is first one using map and then reducing whereas second one is filtering and doing a count.
Could anyone suggest which is efficient.
I would suggest:
val wordFound = !rdd.filter(line=>line.contains(keyword)).isEmpty()
Benefit: The search can be stopped once 1 occurence of keyword was found
see also Spark: Efficient way to test if an RDD is empty
I've been breaking my head about this one for a couple of days now. It feels like it should be intuitively easy... Really hope someone can help!
I've built an org.nd4j.linalg.api.ndarray.INDArray of word occurrence from some semi-structured data like this:
import org.nd4j.linalg.factory.Nd4j
import org.nd4s.Implicits._
val docMap = collection.mutable.Map[Int,Map[Int,Int]] //of the form Map(phrase -> Map(phrasePosition -> word)
val words = ArrayBuffer("word_1","word_2","word_3",..."word_n")
val windows = ArrayBuffer("$phrase,$phrasePosition_1","$phrase,$phrasePosition_2",..."$phrase,$phrasePosition_n")
var matrix = Nd4j.create(windows.length*words.length).reshape(windows.length,words.length)
for (row <- matrix.shape(0)){
for(column <- matrix.shape(1){
//+1 to (row,column) if word occurs at phrase, phrasePosition indicated by window_n.
}
}
val finalmatrix = matrix.T.dot(matrix) // to get co-occurrence matrix
So far so good...
Downstream of this point I need to integrate the data into an existing pipeline in Spark, and use that implementation of pca etc, so I need to create a DataFrame, or at least an RDD. If I knew the number of words and/or windows in advance I could do something like:
case class Row(window : String, word_1 : Double, word_2 : Double, ...etc)
val dfSeq = ArrayBuffer[Row]()
for (row <- matrix.shape(0)){
dfSeq += Row(windows(row),matrix.get(NDArrayIndex.point(row), NDArrayIndex.all()))
}
sc.parallelize(dfSeq).toDF("window","word_1","word_2",...etc)
but the number of windows and words is determined at runtime. I'm looking for a WindowsxWords org.apache.spark.sql.DataFrame as output, input is a WindowsxWords org.nd4j.linalg.api.ndarray.INDArray
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.
Ok, so after several days work it looks like the simple answer is: there isn't one. In fact, it looks like trying to use Nd4j in this context at all is a bad idea for several reasons:
It's (really) hard to get data out of the native INDArray format once you've put it in.
Even using something like guava, the .data() method brings everything on heap which will quickly become expensive.
You've got the added hassle of having to compile an assembly jar or use hdfs etc to handle the library itself.
I did also consider using Breeze which may actually provide a viable solution but carries some of the same problems and can't be used on distributed data structures.
Unfortunately, using native Spark / Scala datatypes, although easier once you know how, is - for someone like me coming from Python + numpy + pandas heaven at least - painfully convoluted and ugly.
Nevertheless, I did implement this solution successfully:
import org.apache.spark.mllib.linalg.{Vectors,Vector,Matrix,DenseMatrix,DenseVector}
import org.apache.spark.mllib.linalg.distributed.RowMatrix
//first make a pseudo-matrix from Scala Array[Double]:
var rowSeq = Seq.fill(windows.length)(Array.fill(words.length)(0d))
//iterate through 'rows' and 'columns' to fill it:
for (row 0 until windows.length){
for (column 0 until words.length){
// rowSeq(row)(column) += 1 if word occurs at phrase, phrasePosition indicated by window_n.
}
}
//create Spark DenseMatrix
val rows : Array[Double] = rowSeq.transpose.flatten.toArray
val matrix = new DenseMatrix(windows.length,words.length,rows)
One of the main operations that I needed Nd4J for was matrix.T.dot(matrix) but it turns out that you can't multiply 2 matrices of Type org.apache.spark.mllib.linalg.DenseMatrix together, one of them (A) has to be a org.apache.spark.mllib.linalg.distributed.RowMatrix and - you guessed it - you can't call matrix.transpose() on a RowMatrix, only on a DenseMatrix! Since it's not really relevant to the question, I'll leave that part out, except to explain that what comes out of that step is a RowMatrix. Credit is also due here and here for the final part of the solution:
val rowMatrix : [RowMatrix] = transposeAndDotDenseMatrix(matrix)
// get DataFrame from RowMatrix via DenseMatrix
val newdense = new DenseMatrix(rowMatrix.numRows().toInt,rowMatrix.numCols().toInt,rowMatrix.rows.collect.flatMap(x => x.toArray)) // the call to collect() here is undesirable...
val matrixRows = newdense.rowIter.toSeq.map(_.toArray)
val df = spark.sparkContext.parallelize(matrixRows).toDF("Rows")
// then separate columns:
val df2 = (0 until words.length).foldLeft(df)((df, num) =>
df.withColumn(words(num), $"Rows".getItem(num)))
.drop("Rows")
Would love to hear improvements and suggestions on this, thanks.
Imagine a table t with two columns -- col24 and col18I want to make a data frame 'r'.So that the resulting data frame will have only one column col24 called first_name.
I have tried the following code but it wont work.but I get it incorrect help me to solve
import pyspark.sql.functions as f
r = t.select(f.explode("col24").alias("first_name")).toPandas()
import pyspark.sql.functions as f
If I understood your question correctly, these two options should work:
r = t.select('col24').f.withColumnRenamed('col24', 'first_name')
r = t.withColumnRenamed('col24', 'first_name').drop('col18')
If you have multiple columns in a list my_cols for example, then second option becomes:
r = t.withColumnRenamed('col24', 'first_name').drop(*my_cols)
Then you can check your dataframe:
r.show()
or if t is massive, just check for columns names:
r.columns
Please find your expected answer below:
select(f.col("col24").alias("first_name"))
So I have a data set where I do some transformations and the last step is to filter out rows that have a 0 in a column called frequency. The code that does the filtering is super simple:
def filter_rows(self, name: str = None, frequency_col: str = 'frequency', threshold: int = 1):
df = getattr(self, name)
df = df.where(df[frequency_col] >= threshold)
setattr(self, name, df)
return self
The problem is a very strange behavior where if I put a rather high threshold like 10, it works fine, filtering out all the rows below 10. But if I make the threshold just 1, it does not remove the 0s! Here is an example of the former (threshold=10):
{"user":"XY1677KBTzDX7EXnf-XRAYW4ZB_vmiNvav7hL42BOhlcxZ8FQ","domain":"3a899ebbaa182778d87d","frequency":12}
{"user":"lhoAWb9U9SXqscEoQQo9JqtZo39nutq3NgrJjba38B10pDkI","domain":"3a899ebbaa182778d87d","frequency":9}
{"user":"aRXbwY0HcOoRT302M8PCnzOQx9bOhDG9Z_fSUq17qtLt6q6FI","domain":"33bd29288f507256d4b2","frequency":23}
{"user":"RhfrV_ngDpJex7LzEhtgmWk","domain":"390b4f317c40ac486d63","frequency":14}
{"user":"qZqqsNSNko1V9eYhJB3lPmPp0p5bKSq0","domain":"390b4f317c40ac486d63","frequency":11}
{"user":"gsmP6RG13azQRmQ-RxcN4MWGLxcx0Grs","domain":"f4765996305ccdfa9650","frequency":10}
{"user":"jpYTnYjVkZ0aVexb_L3ZqnM86W8fr082HwLliWWiqhnKY5A96zwWZKNxC","domain":"f4765996305ccdfa9650","frequency":15}
{"user":"Tlgyxk_rJF6uE8cLM2sArPRxiOOpnLwQo2s","domain":"f89838b928d5070c3bc3","frequency":17}
{"user":"qHu7fpnz2lrBGFltj98knzzbwWDfU","domain":"f89838b928d5070c3bc3","frequency":11}
{"user":"k0tU5QZjRkBwqkKvMIDWd565YYGHfg","domain":"f89838b928d5070c3bc3","frequency":17}
And now here is some of the data with threshold=1:
{"user":"KuhSEPFKACJdNyMBBD2i6ul0Nc_b72J4","domain":"d69cb6f62b885fec9b7d","frequency":0}
{"user":"EP1LomZ3qAMV3YtduC20","domain":"d69cb6f62b885fec9b7d","frequency":0}
{"user":"UxulBfshmCro-srE3Cs5znxO5tnVfc0_yFps","domain":"d69cb6f62b885fec9b7d","frequency":1}
{"user":"v2OX7UyvMVnWlDeDyYC8Opk-va_i8AwxZEsxbk","domain":"d69cb6f62b885fec9b7d","frequency":0}
{"user":"4hu1uE2ucAYZIrNLeOY2y9JMaArFZGRqjgKzlKenC5-GfxDJQQbLcXNSzj","domain":"68b588cedbc66945c442","frequency":0}
{"user":"5rFMWm_A-7N1E9T289iZ65TIR_JG_OnZpJ-g","domain":"68b588cedbc66945c442","frequency":1}
{"user":"RLqoxFMZ7Si3CTPN1AnI4hj6zpwMCJI","domain":"68b588cedbc66945c442","frequency":1}
{"user":"wolq9L0592MGRfV_M-FxJ5Wc8UUirjqjMdaMDrI","domain":"68b588cedbc66945c442","frequency":0}
{"user":"9spTLehI2w0fHcxyvaxIfo","domain":"68b588cedbc66945c442","frequency":1}
I should note that before this step I perform some other transformations, and I've noticed weird behaviors in Spark in the past sometimes doing very simple things like this after a join or a union can give very strange results where eventually the only solution is to write out the data and read it back in again and do the operation in a completely separate script. I hope there is a better solution than this!
I have been doing a count of "games" using spark-sql. The first way is like so:
val gamesByVersion = dataframe.groupBy("game_version", "server").count().withColumnRenamed("count", "patch_games")
val games_count1 = gamesByVersion.where($"game_version" === 1 && $"server" === 1)
The second is like this:
val gamesDf = dataframe.
groupBy($"hero_id", $"position", $"game_version", $"server").count().
withColumnRenamed("count", "hero_games")
val games_count2 = gamesDf.where($"game_version" === 1 && $"server" === 1).agg(sum("hero_games"))
For all intents and purposes dataframe just has the columns hero_id, position, game_version and server.
However games_count1 ends up being about 10, and games_count2 ends up being 50. Obviously these two counting methods are not equivalent or something else is going on, but I am trying to figure out: what is the reason for the difference between these?
I guess because in first query you group by only 2 columns and in the second 4 columns. Therefore, you may have less distinct groups just on two columns.