Spark Dataset equivalent for scala's "collect" taking a partial function - scala

Regular scala collections have a nifty collect method which lets me do a filter-map operation in one pass using a partial function. Is there an equivalent operation on spark Datasets?
I'd like it for two reasons:
syntactic simplicity
it reduces filter-map style operations to a single pass (although in spark I am guessing there are optimizations which spot these things for you)
Here is an example to show what I mean. Suppose I have a sequence of options and I want to extract and double just the defined integers (those in a Some):
val input = Seq(Some(3), None, Some(-1), None, Some(4), Some(5))
Method 1 - collect
input.collect {
case Some(value) => value * 2
}
// List(6, -2, 8, 10)
The collect makes this quite neat syntactically and does one pass.
Method 2 - filter-map
input.filter(_.isDefined).map(_.get * 2)
I can carry this kind of pattern over to spark because datasets and data frames have analogous methods.
But I don't like this so much because isDefined and get seem like code smells to me. There's an implicit assumption that map is receiving only Somes. The compiler can't verify this. In a bigger example, that assumption would be harder for a developer to spot and the developer might swap the filter and map around for example without getting a syntax error.
Method 3 - fold* operations
input.foldRight[List[Int]](Nil) {
case (nextOpt, acc) => nextOpt match {
case Some(next) => next*2 :: acc
case None => acc
}
}
I haven't used spark enough to know if fold has an equivalent so this might be a bit tangential.
Anyway, the pattern match, the fold boiler plate and the rebuilding of the list all get jumbled together and it's hard to read.
So overall I find the collect syntax the nicest and I'm hoping spark has something like this.

The answers here are incorrect, at least with the current of Spark.
RDDs do in fact have a collect method that takes a partial function and applies a filter & map to the data. This is completely different from the parameterless .collect() method. See the Spark source code RDD.scala # line 955:
/**
* Return an RDD that contains all matching values by applying `f`.
*/
def collect[U: ClassTag](f: PartialFunction[T, U]): RDD[U] = withScope {
val cleanF = sc.clean(f)
filter(cleanF.isDefinedAt).map(cleanF)
}
This does not materialize the data from the RDD, as opposed to the parameterless .collect() method in RDD.scala # line 923:
/**
* Return an array that contains all of the elements in this RDD.
*/
def collect(): Array[T] = withScope {
val results = sc.runJob(this, (iter: Iterator[T]) => iter.toArray)
Array.concat(results: _*)
}
In the documentation, notice how the
def collect[U](f: PartialFunction[T, U]): RDD[U]
method does not have a warning associated with it about the data being loaded into the driver's memory:
https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/api/scala/index.html#org.apache.spark.rdd.RDD#collect[U](f:PartialFunction[T,U])(implicitevidence$29:scala.reflect.ClassTag[U]):org.apache.spark.rdd.RDD[U]
It's very confusing for Spark to have these overloaded methods doing completely different things.
edit: My mistake! I misread the question, we're talking about DataSets not RDDs. Still, the accepted answer says that
"the Spark documentation points out, however, "this method should only be used if the resulting array is expected to be small, as all the data is loaded into the driver's memory."
Which is incorrect! The data is not loaded into the driver's memory when calling the partial function version of .collect() - only when calling the parameterless version. Calling .collect(partial_function) should have about the same performance as calling .filter() and .map() sequentially, as shown in the source code above.

Just for the sake of completeness:
The RDD API does have such a method, so it's always an option to convert a given Dataset / DataFrame to RDD, perform the collect operation and convert back, e.g.:
val dataset = Seq(Some(1), None, Some(2)).toDS()
val dsResult = dataset.rdd.collect { case Some(i) => i * 2 }.toDS()
However, this will probably perform worse than using a map and filter on the Dataset (for the reason explained in #stefanobaghino's answer).
As for DataFrames, this particular example (using Option) is somewhat misleading, as the conversion into a DataFrame actually does the "flatenning" of Options into their values (or null for None), so the equivalent expression would be:
val dataframe = Seq(Some(1), None, Some(2)).toDF("opt")
dataframe.withColumn("opt", $"opt".multiply(2)).filter(not(isnull($"opt")))
Which, I think, suffers less from your concerns of having the map operation "assume" anything about its input.

The collect method defined over RDDs and Datasets is used to materialize the data in the driver program.
Despite not having something akin to the Collections API collect method, your intuition is right: since both operations are evaluated lazily, the engine has the opportunity to optimize the operations and chain them so that they are performed with maximum locality.
For the use case you mentioned in particular I would suggest you take flatMap in consideration, which works on both RDDs and Datasets:
// Assumes the usual spark-shell environment
// sc: SparkContext, spark: SparkSession
val collection = Seq(Some(1), None, Some(2), None, Some(3))
val rdd = sc.parallelize(collection)
val dataset = spark.createDataset(rdd)
// Both operations will yield `Array(2, 4, 6)`
rdd.flatMap(_.map(_ * 2)).collect
dataset.flatMap(_.map(_ * 2)).collect
// You can also express the operation in terms of a for-comprehension
(for (option <- rdd; n <- option) yield n * 2).collect
(for (option <- dataset; n <- option) yield n * 2).collect
// The same approach is valid for traditional collections as well
collection.flatMap(_.map(_ * 2))
for (option <- collection; n <- option) yield n * 2
EDIT
As correctly pointed out in another question, RDDs actually have the collect method that transforms an RDD by applying a partial function just like it happens in normal collections. As the Spark documentation points out, however, "this method should only be used if the resulting array is expected to be small, as all the data is loaded into the driver's memory."

I just wanted to extend stefanobaghino's answer by including an example of a for comprehension with a case class as many use cases for this will probably involve case classes.
Also options are monads which makes the accepted answer very simple in this case as the for neatly drops out the None values, but that approach wouldn't extend to non-monads like case classes:
case class A(b: Boolean, i: Int, d: Double)
val collection = Seq(A(true, 3), A(false, 10), A(true, -1))
val rdd = ...
val dataset = ...
// Select out and double all the 'i' values where 'b' is true:
for {
A(b, i, _) <- dataset
if b
} yield i * 2

You can always create your own extension method:
implicit class DatasetOps[T](ds: Dataset[T]) {
def collectt[U](pf: PartialFunction[T, U])(implicit enc: Encoder[U]): Dataset[U] = {
ds.flatMap(pf.lift(_))
}
}
such that:
// val ds = Dataset(1, 2, 3)
ds.collectt { case x if x % 2 == 1 => x * 3 }
// Dataset(3, 9)
Note that I've unfortunately not been able to name it collect (thus the awful suffix t) as the signature would otherwise (I think) clash with the existing Dataset#collect method that transforms a Dataset into an Array.

Related

Selecting every 3rd element from a huge RDD [duplicate]

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)

Collection.partition in spark [duplicate]

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)

Creating multiple RDDs out of one RDD [duplicate]

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)

Spark closure argument binding

I am working with Apache Spark in Scala.
I have a problem when trying to manipulate one RDD with data from a second RDD. I am trying to pass the 2nd RDD as an argument to a function being 'mapped' against the first RDD, but seemingly the closure created on that function binds an uninitialized version of that value.
Following is a simpler piece of code that shows the type of problem I'm seeing. (My real example where I first had trouble is larger and less understandable).
I don't really understand the argument binding rules for Spark closures.
What I'm really looking for is a basic approach or pattern for how to manipulate one RDD using the content of another (which was previously constructed elsewhere).
In the following code, calling Test1.process(sc) will fail with a null pointer access in findSquare (as the 2nd arg bound in the closure is not initialized)
object Test1 {
def process(sc: SparkContext) {
val squaresMap = (1 to 10).map(n => (n, n * n))
val squaresRDD = sc.parallelize(squaresMap)
val primes = sc.parallelize(List(2, 3, 5, 7))
for (p <- primes) {
println("%d: %d".format(p, findSquare(p, squaresRDD)))
}
}
def findSquare(n: Int, squaresRDD: RDD[(Int, Int)]): Int = {
squaresRDD.filter(kv => kv._1 == n).first._1
}
}
Problem you experience has nothing to do with closures or RDDs which, contrary to popular belief, are serializable.
It is simply breaks a fundamental Spark rule which states that you cannot trigger an action or transformation from another action or transformation* and different variants of this question have been asked on SO multiple times.
To understand why that's the case you have to think about the architecture:
SparkContext is managed on the driver
everything that happens inside transformations is executed on the workers. Each worker have access only to its own part of the data and don't communicate with other workers**.
If you want to use content of multiple RDDs you have to use one of the transformations which combine RDDs, like join, cartesian, zip or union.
Here you most likely (I am not sure why you pass tuple and use only first element of this tuple) want to either use a broadcast variable:
val squaresMapBD = sc.broadcast(squaresMap)
def findSquare(n: Int): Seq[(Int, Int)] = {
squaresMapBD.value
.filter{case (k, v) => k == n}
.map{case (k, v) => (n, k)}
.take(1)
}
primes.flatMap(findSquare)
or Cartesian:
primes
.cartesian(squaresRDD)
.filter{case (n, (k, _)) => n == k}.map{case (n, (k, _)) => (n, k)}
Converting primes to dummy pairs (Int, null) and join would be more efficient:
primes.map((_, null)).join(squaresRDD).map(...)
but based on your comments I assume you're interested in a scenario when there is natural join condition.
Depending on a context you can also consider using database or files to store common data.
On a side note RDDs are not iterable so you cannot simply use for loop. To be able to do something like this you have to collect or convert toLocalIterator first. You can also use foreach method.
* To be precise you cannot access SparkContext.
** Torrent broadcast and tree aggregates involve communication between executors so it is technically possible.
RDD are not serializable, so you can't use an rdd inside an rdd trasformation.
Then I've never seen enumerate an rdd with a for statement, usually I use foreach statement that is part of rdd api.
In order to combine data from two rdd, you can leverage join, union or broadcast ( in case your rdd is small)

Flattening a Set of pairs of sets to one pair of sets

I have a for-comprehension with a generator from a Set[MyType]
This MyType has a lazy val variable called factsPair which returns a pair of sets:
(Set[MyFact], Set[MyFact]).
I wish to loop through all of them and unify the facts into one flattened pair (Set[MyFact], Set[MyFact]) as follows, however I am getting No implicit view available ... and not enough arguments for flatten: implicit (asTraversable ... errors. (I am a bit new to Scala so still trying to get used to the errors).
lazy val allFacts =
(for {
mytype <- mytypeList
} yield mytype.factsPair).flatten
What do I need to specify to flatten for this to work?
Scala flatten works on same types. You have a Seq[(Set[MyFact], Set[MyFact])], which can't be flattened.
I would recommend learning the foldLeft function, because it's very general and quite easy to use as soon as you get the hang of it:
lazy val allFacts = myTypeList.foldLeft((Set[MyFact](), Set[MyFact]())) {
case (accumulator, next) =>
val pairs1 = accumulator._1 ++ next.factsPair._1
val pairs2 = accumulator._2 ++ next.factsPair._2
(pairs1, pairs2)
}
The first parameter takes the initial element it will append the other elements to. We start with an empty Tuple[Set[MyFact], Set[MyFact]] initialized like this: (Set[MyFact](), Set[MyFact]()).
Next we have to specify the function that takes the accumulator and appends the next element to it and returns with the new accumulator that has the next element in it. Because of all the tuples, it doesn't look nice, but works.
You won't be able to use flatten for this, because flatten on a collection returns a collection, and a tuple is not a collection.
You can, of course, just split, flatten, and join again:
val pairs = for {
mytype <- mytypeList
} yield mytype.factsPair
val (first, second) = pairs.unzip
val allFacts = (first.flatten, second.flatten)
A tuple isn't traverable, so you can't flatten over it. You need to return something that can be iterated over, like a List, for example:
List((1,2), (3,4)).flatten // bad
List(List(1,2), List(3,4)).flatten // good
I'd like to offer a more algebraic view. What you have here can be nicely solved using monoids. For each monoid there is a zero element and an operation to combine two elements into one.
In this case, sets for a monoid: the zero element is an empty set and the operation is a union. And if we have two monoids, their Cartesian product is also a monoid, where the operations are defined pairwise (see examples on Wikipedia).
Scalaz defines monoids for sets as well as tuples, so we don't need to do anything there. We'll just need a helper function that combines multiple monoid elements into one, which is implemented easily using folding:
def msum[A](ps: Iterable[A])(implicit m: Monoid[A]): A =
ps.foldLeft(m.zero)(m.append(_, _))
(perhaps there already is such a function in Scala, I didn't find it). Using msum we can easily define
def pairs(ps: Iterable[MyType]): (Set[MyFact], Set[MyFact]) =
msum(ps.map(_.factsPair))
using Scalaz's implicit monoids for tuples and sets.