Sorry for the confusion in the initial question. Here is a questions with the reproducible example:
I have an rdd of [String] and I have a rdd of [String, Long]. I would like to have an rdd of [Long] based on the match of String of second with String of first. Example:
//Create RDD
val textFile = sc.parallelize(Array("Spark can also be used for compute intensive tasks",
"This code estimates pi by throwing darts at a circle"))
// tokenize, result: RDD[(String)]
val words = textFile.flatMap(line => line.split(" "))
// create index of distinct words, result: RDD[(String,Long)]
val indexWords = words.distinct().zipWithIndex()
As a result, I would like to have an RDD with indexes of words instead of words in "Spark can also be used for compute intensive tasks".
Sorry again and thanks
If I understand you correctly, you're interested in the indices of works that also appear in Spark can also be used for compute intensive tasks.
If so - here are two versions with identical outputs but different performance characteristics:
val lookupWords: Seq[String] = "Spark can also be used for compute intensive tasks".split(" ")
// option 1 - use join:
val lookupWordsRdd: RDD[(String, String)] = sc.parallelize(lookupWords).keyBy(w => w)
val result1: RDD[Long] = indexWords.join(lookupWordsRdd).map { case (key, (index, _)) => index }
// option 2 - assuming list of lookup words is short, you can use a non-distributed version of it
val result2: RDD[Long] = indexWords.collect { case (key, index) if lookupWords.contains(key) => index }
The first option creates a second RDD with the words whose indices we're interested in, uses keyBy to transform it into a PairRDD (with key == value!), joins it with your indexWords RDD and then maps to get the index only.
The second option should only be used if the list of "interesting words" is known not to be too large - so we can keep it as a list (and not RDD), and let Spark serialize it and send to workers for each task to use. We then use collect(f: PartialFunction[T, U]) which applies this partial function to get a "filter" and a "map" at once - we only return a value if the words exists in the list, and if so - we return the index.
I was getting an error of SPARK-5063 and given this answer, I found the solution to my problem:
//broadcast `indexWords`
val bcIndexWords = sc.broadcast(indexWords.collectAsMap)
// select `value` of `indexWords` given `key`
val result = textFile.map{arr => arr.split(" ").map(elem => bcIndexWords.value(elem))}
result.first()
res373: Array[Long] = Array(3, 7, 14, 6, 17, 15, 0, 12)
Related
I have this Seq[(String, String)] :
val tupleSeq: Seq[(String, String)] = Seq(
("aaa", "A_A_A"),
("bbb", "B_B_B"),
("ccc", "C_C_C")
)
I want to use the given seqA on tupleSeq:
val seqA: Seq[String] = Seq("aaa", "bbb")
In order to obtain :
val seqB: Seq[String] = Seq("A_A_A", "B_B_B")
Any ideas ?
One approach is to use the data unaltered.
// The size of `data` is M
// The size of `query` is N
val data: Seq[(String, String)] = Seq(
("aaa", "A_A_A"),
("bbb", "B_B_B"),
("ccc", "C_C_C")
)
val query: Seq[String] = Seq("aaa", "bbb")
// Use the data as is
// O(M * N)
for {
(key, value) <- data
lookup <- query
if key == lookup
} yield value
The problem with this approach is that the overall complexity is O(M * N), where M and N are the sizes of the data and query collections. This might be completely acceptable if either M or N are known to be very small and can be further improved in practical terms by making use of functions that can terminate early (like find, exemplified in another answer).
If M and N are reasonably large, you might want to spend the time necessary to convert them into an appropriate data structure (which consumes time and space in a way which is linear to the size of the collection).
Depending on which size you expect to be larger you might want to either turn the data into a map and look up the relevant keys or turn the query into a set and iterate each key in the map to find which is relevant.
I would expect the data to be queried in most cases to be larger than the query, so probably you may want to turn the data into a map. Keeping the map around would also allow you to query it multiple times without suffering from the time to turn it into a more appropriate structure for querying.
// Turn the query into a set and iterate the data
// O(M)
val lookups = query.toSet
data.collect {
case (key, value) if lookups.contains(key) => value
}
// Turn the data into a map and iterate the query
// O(N)
val map = data.toMap
query.collect(map)
You can play around with this code here on Scastie.
Your tupleSeq naturally looks like a Map of key-to-value pairs, so you should treat it like one. The code becomes very simple with this observation:
val myMap = tupleSeq.toMap
val seqB = seqA.collect(myMap) // List(A_A_A, B_B_B)
For additional space complexity, you get O(1) amortized time complexity for your query, which is an acceptable trade-off and arguably a better solution than linear searches through the sequence.
Note the use of collect instead of map because it discards keys that do not have a mapping value in your Map.
val tupleSeq: Seq[(String, String)] = Seq(
("aaa", "A_A_A"),
("bbb", "B_B_B"),
("ccc", "C_C_C")
)
val seqA: Seq[String] = Seq("aaa", "bbb")
// List(A_A_A, B_B_B)
val seqB = for {
key <- seqA
value <- tupleSeq.find(_._1 == key).map(_._2)
} yield value
You can try something like this:
val seqB = tupleSeq.filter{x => seqA.contains(x._1)}.map(x => x._2)
It filters the sequence and keeps the tuples where the first value is part of your second sequence, and then maps the tuples to the second value.
seqB.foreach(println) then outputs this:
A_A_A
B_B_B
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'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'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)
This is a newbie question.
Is it possible to transform an RDD like (key,1,2,3,4,5,5,666,789,...) with a dynamic dimension into a pairRDD like (key, (1,2,3,4,5,5,666,789,...))?
I feel like it should be super-easy but I cannot get how to.
The point of doing it is that I would like to sum all the values, but not the key.
Any help is appreciated.
I am using Spark 1.2.0
EDIT enlightened by the answer I explain my use case deeplier. I have N (unknown at compile time) different pairRDD (key, value), that have to be joined and whose values must be summed up. Is there a better way than the one I was thinking?
First of all if you just wanna sum all integers but first the simplest way would be:
val rdd = sc.parallelize(List(1, 2, 3))
rdd.cache()
val first = rdd.sum()
val result = rdd.count - first
On the other hand if you want to have access to the index of elements you can use rdd zipWithIndex method like this:
val indexed = rdd.zipWithIndex()
indexed.cache()
val result = (indexed.first()._2, indexed.filter(_._1 != 1))
But in your case this feels like overkill.
One more thing i would add, this looks like questionable desine to put key as first element of your rdd. Why not just instead use pairs (key, rdd) in your driver program. Its quite hard to reason about order of elements in rdd and i cant not think about natural situation in witch key is computed as first element of rdd (ofc i dont know your usecase so i can only guess).
EDIT
If you have one rdd of key value pairs and you want to sum them by key then do just:
val result = rdd.reduceByKey(_ + _)
If you have many rdds of key value pairs before counting you can just sum them up
val list = List(pairRDD0, pairRDD1, pairRDD2)
//another pairRDD arives in runtime
val newList = anotherPairRDD0::list
val pairRDD = newList.reduce(_ union _)
val resultSoFar = pairRDD.reduceByKey(_ + _)
//another pairRDD arives in runtime
val result = resultSoFar.union(anotherPairRDD1).reduceByKey(_ + _)
EDIT
I edited example. As you can see you can add additional rdd when every it comes up in runtime. This is because reduceByKey returns rdd of the same type so you can iterate this operation (Ofc you will have to consider performence).