I have five Hive tables assume the names is A, B, C, D, and E. For each table there is a customer_id as the key for join between them. Also, Each table contains at least 100:600 columns all of them is Parquet format.
Example of one table below:
CREATE TABLE table_a
(
customer_id Long,
col_1 STRING,
col_2 STRING,
col_3 STRING,
.
.
col_600 STRING
)
STORED AS PARQUET;
I need to achieve two points,
Join all of them together with the most optimum way using Spark Scala. I tried to sortByKey before join but still there is a performance bottleneck. I tried to reparation by key before join but the performance is still not good. I tried to increase the parallelism for Spark to make it 6000 with many executors but not able to achieve a good results.
After join I need to apply a separate function for some of these columns.
Sample of the join I tried below,
val dsA = spark.table(table_a)
val dsB = spark.table(table_b)
val dsC = spark.table(table_c)
val dsD = spark.table(table_d)
val dsE = spark.table(table_e)
val dsAJoineddsB = dsA.join(dsB,Seq(customer_id),"inner")
I think in this case the direct join is not the optimal case. You can acheive this task using the below simple way.
First, create case class for example FeatureData with two fields case class FeatureData(customer_id:Long, featureValue:Map[String,String])
Second, You will map each table to FeatureData case class key, [feature_name,feature_value]
Third, You will groupByKey and union all the dataset with the same key.
I the above way it will be faster to union than join. But it need more work.
After that, you will have a dataset with key,map. You will apply the transformation for key, Map(feature_name).
Simple example of the implementation as following:
You will map first the dataset to the case class then you can union all of them. After that you will groupByKey then map it and reduce it.
case class FeatureMappedData(customer_id:Long, feature: Map[String, String])
val dsAMapped = dsA.map(row ⇒
FeatureMappedData(row.customer_id,
Map("featureA" -> row.featureA,
"featureB" -> row.featureB)))
val unionDataSet = dsAMapped union dsBMapped
unionDataSet.groupByKey(_.customer_id)
.mapGroups({
case (eid, featureIter) ⇒ {
val featuresMapped: Map[String, String] = featureIter.map(_.feature).reduce(_ ++ _).withDefaultValue("0")
FeatureMappedData(customer_id, featuresMapped)
}
})
Related
I have two hive clustered tables t1 and t2
CREATE EXTERNAL TABLE `t1`(
`t1_req_id` string,
...
PARTITIONED BY (`t1_stats_date` string)
CLUSTERED BY (t1_req_id) INTO 1000 BUCKETS
// t2 looks similar with same amount of buckets
the code looks like as following:
val t1 = spark.table("t1").as[T1].rdd.map(v => (v.t1_req_id, v))
val t2= spark.table("t2").as[T2].rdd.map(v => (v.t2_req_id, v))
val outRdd = t1.cogroup(t2)
.flatMap { coGroupRes =>
val key = coGroupRes._1
val value: (Iterable[T1], Iterable[T2])= coGroupRes._2
val t3List = // create a list with some logic on Iterable[T1] and Iterable[T2]
t3List
}
outRdd.write....
I make sure that the both t1 and t2 table has same amount of partitions, and on spark-submit there are
spark.sql.sources.bucketing.enabled=true and spark.sessionState.conf.bucketingEnabled=true flags
But Spark DAG doesn't show any impact of clustering. It seems there is still data full shuffle
What am I missing, any other configurations, tunings? How can it be assured that there is no full data shuffle?
My spark version is 2.3.1
And it shouldn't show.
Any logical optimizations are limited to DataFrame API. Once you push data to black-box functional dataset API (see Spark 2.0 Dataset vs DataFrame) and later to RDD API, no more information is pushed back to the optimizer.
You could partially utilize bucketing by performing join first, getting something around these lines
spark.table("t1")
.join(spark.table("t2"), $"t1.t1_req_id" === $"t2.t2_req_id", "outer")
.groupBy($"t1.v.t1_req_id", $"t2.t2_req_id")
.agg(...) // For example collect_set($"t1.v"), collect_set($"t2.v")
However, unlike cogroup, this will generate full Cartesian Products within groups, and might be not applicable in your case
I have two hive clustered tables t1 and t2
CREATE EXTERNAL TABLE `t1`(
`t1_req_id` string,
...
PARTITIONED BY (`t1_stats_date` string)
CLUSTERED BY (t1_req_id) INTO 1000 BUCKETS
// t2 looks similar with same amount of buckets
The insert part happens in hive
set hive.exec.dynamic.partition=true;
set hive.exec.dynamic.partition.mode=nonstrict;
insert overwrite table `t1` partition(t1_stats_date,t1_stats_hour)
select *
from t1_raw
where t1_stats_date='2020-05-10' and t1_stats_hour='12' AND
t1_req_id is not null
The code looks like as following:
val t1 = spark.table("t1").as[T1]
val t2= spark.table("t2").as[T2]
val outDS = t1.joinWith(t2, t1("t1_req_id) === t2("t2_req_id), "fullouter")
.map { case (t1Obj, t2Obj) =>
val t3:T3 = // do some logic
t3
}
outDS.toDF.write....
I see projection in DAG - but it seems that the job still does full data shuffle
Also, while looking into the logs of executor I don't see it reads the same bucket of the two tables in one chunk - that what I would expect to find
There are spark.sql.sources.bucketing.enabled, spark.sessionState.conf.bucketingEnabled and
spark.sql.join.preferSortMergeJoin flags
What am I missing? and why is there still full shuffle, if there are bucketed tables?
The current spark version is 2.3.1
One possibility here to check for is if you have a type mismatch. E.g. if the type of the join column is string in T1 and BIGINT in T2. Even if the types are both integer (e.g. one is INT, another BIGINT) Spark will still add shuffle here because different types use different hash functions for bucketing.
Consider two Dataframe data_df and update_df. These two dataframes have the same schema (key, update_time, bunch of columns).
I know two (main) way to "update" data_df with update_df
full outer join
I join the two dataframes (on key) and then pick the appropriate columns (according to the value of update_timestamp)
max over partition
Union both dataframes, compute the max update_timestamp by key and then filter only rows that equal this maximum.
Here are the questions :
Is there any other way ?
Which one is the best way and why ?
I've already done the comparison with some Open Data
Here is the join code
var join_df = data_df.alias("data").join(maj_df.alias("maj"), Seq("key"), "outer")
var res_df = join_df.where( $"data.update_time" > $"maj.update_time" || $"maj.update_time".isNull)
.select(col("data.*"))
.union(
join_df.where( $"data.update_time" < $"maj.update_time" || $"data.update_time".isNull)
.select(col("maj.*")))
And here is window code
import org.apache.spark.sql.expressions._
val byKey = Window.partitionBy($"key") // orderBy is implicit here
res_df = data_df.union(maj_df)
.withColumn("max_version", max("update_time").over(byKey))
.where($"update_time" === $"max_version")
I can paste you DAGs and Plans here if needed, but they are pretty large
My first guess is that the join solution might be the best way but it only works if the update dataframe got only one version per key.
PS : I'm aware of Apache Delta solution but sadly i'm not able too use it.
Below is one way of doing it to only join on the keys, in an effort to minimize the amount of memory to be used on filters and on join commands.
///Two records, one with a change, one no change
val originalDF = spark.sql("select 'aa' as Key, 'Joe' as Name").unionAll(spark.sql("select 'cc' as Key, 'Doe' as Name"))
///Two records, one change, one new
val updateDF = = spark.sql("select 'aa' as Key, 'Aoe' as Name").unionAll(spark.sql("select 'bb' as Key, 'Moe' as Name"))
///Make new DFs of each just for Key
val originalKeyDF = originalDF.selectExpr("Key")
val updateKeyDF = updateDF.selectExpr("Key")
///Find the keys that are similar between both
val joinKeyDF = updateKeyDF.join(originalKeyDF, updateKeyDF("Key") === originalKeyDF("Key"), "inner")
///Turn the known keys into an Array
val joinKeyArray = joinKeyDF.select(originalKeyDF("Key")).rdd.map(x=>x.mkString).collect
///Filter the rows from original that are not found in the new file
val originalNoChangeDF = originalDF.where(!($"Key".isin(joinKeyArray:_*)))
///Update the output with unchanged records, update records, and new records
val finalDF = originalNoChangeDF.unionAll(updateDF)
I have two rdd one rdd have just one column other have two columns to join the two RDD on key's I have add dummy value which is 0 , is there any other efficient way of doing this using join ?
val lines = sc.textFile("ml-100k/u.data")
val movienamesfile = sc.textFile("Cml-100k/u.item")
val moviesid = lines.map(x => x.split("\t")).map(x => (x(1),0))
val test = moviesid.map(x => x._1)
val movienames = movienamesfile.map(x => x.split("\\|")).map(x => (x(0),x(1)))
val shit = movienames.join(moviesid).distinct()
Edit:
Let me convert this question in SQL. Say for example I have table1 (moveid) and table2 (movieid,moviename). In SQL we write something like:
select moviename, movieid, count(1)
from table2 inner join table table1 on table1.movieid=table2.moveid
group by ....
here in SQL table1 has only one column where as table2 has two columns still the join works, same way in Spark can join on keys from both the RDD's.
Join operation is defined only on PairwiseRDDs which are quite different from a relation / table in SQL. Each element of PairwiseRDD is a Tuple2 where the first element is the key and the second is value. Both can contain complex objects as long as key provides a meaningful hashCode
If you want to think about this in a SQL-ish you can consider key as everything that goes to ON clause and value contains selected columns.
SELECT table1.value, table2.value
FROM table1 JOIN table2 ON table1.key = table2.key
While these approaches look similar at first glance and you can express one using another there is one fundamental difference. When you look at the SQL table and you ignore constraints all columns belong in the same class of objects, while key and value in the PairwiseRDD have a clear meaning.
Going back to your problem to use join you need both key and value. Arguably much cleaner than using 0 as a placeholder would be to use null singleton but there is really no way around it.
For small data you can use filter in a similar way to broadcast join:
val moviesidBD = sc.broadcast(
lines.map(x => x.split("\t")).map(_.head).collect.toSet)
movienames.filter{case (id, _) => moviesidBD.value contains id}
but if you really want SQL-ish joins then you should simply use SparkSQL.
val movieIdsDf = lines
.map(x => x.split("\t"))
.map(a => Tuple1(a.head))
.toDF("id")
val movienamesDf = movienames.toDF("id", "name")
// Add optional join type qualifier
movienamesDf.join(movieIdsDf, movieIdsDf("id") <=> movienamesDf("id"))
On RDD Join operation is only defined for PairwiseRDDs, So need to change the value to pairedRDD. Below is a sample
val rdd1=sc.textFile("/data-001/part/")
val rdd_1=rdd1.map(x=>x.split('|')).map(x=>(x(0),x(1)))
val rdd2=sc.textFile("/data-001/partsupp/")
val rdd_2=rdd2.map(x=>x.split('|')).map(x=>(x(0),x(1)))
rdd_1.join(rdd_2).take(2).foreach(println)
In Apache Flink, if I join two data sets on one primary key I get a tuple 2 containing the corresponding data set entry out each of the data sets.
The problem is, when applying a the map() method to the outcoming tuple 2 data set it does not really look nice, especially if the entries of both data sets have a high number of features.
Using tuples in both input data sets gets me some code like this:
var in1: DataSet[(Int, Int, Int, Int, Int)] = /* */
var in2: DataSet[(Int, Int, Int, Int)] = /* */
val out = in1.join(in2).where(0, 1, 2).equalTo(0, 1, 2)
.map(join => (join._1._1, join._1._2, join._1._3,
join._1._4, join._1._5, join._2._4))
I would not mind using POJOs or case classes, but I don't see how this would make it better.
Question 1: Is there a nice way to flaten that tuple 2? E.g. using another operator.
Question 2: How to handle a join of 3 data sets on the same key? It would make the example source even more messy.
Thanks for helping.
you can directly apply a join function on each pair of joined elements such as for example
val leftData: DataSet[(String, Int, Int)] = ...
val rightData: DataSet[(String, Int)] = ...
val joined: DataSet[(String, Int, Int)] = leftData
.join(rightData).where(0).equalTo(0) { (l, r) => (l._1, l._2, l._3 + r._2) ) }
To answer the second question, Flink handles only binary joins. However, Flink's optimizer can avoid to do unnecessary shuffles, if you give a hint about the behavior of your function. Forward Field annotations tell the optimizer, that certain fields (such as the join key) have not been modified by your join function and enables reusing existing partitioning and sortings.