PySpark foreachPartition write to Database in Parallel
I'm reading in hundreds of XML files into a Spark Dataframe, where each row consist of meta data and time series data for a particular event. Each one of these rows is converted into a rdd to be transformed into batches of documents with a particular key/vale structure and then written over to a database. The XML data need to be broken into batches <50Kb, hence the helper function to produce then batches shown below.
def build_documents(data):
# Make dataframe out of data tags
data = pd.DataFrame([i.split(',') for i in list(chain(*(data)))])
# Helper function to Get Batches
for batch in get_batches(data):
x = batch.T.to_dict()
yield x
def process_partition(partition):
client = document_client.DocumentClient(HOST, 'masterKey': MASTER_KEY )
for element in partition:
generator = build_documents(element)
for batch in generator:
client.CreateDocument(collection_link + 'data', batch)
# Write to Database
df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartition(process_partition)
Still tuning the number of partitions, but any thoughts on how this can be improved? Performance is really slow, as expected with the code implemented so far. The cluster consist of 32 cores, 128.0 GB Memory for both driver and can scale up to 8 executors. As shown below, there is only two workers running, which obviously is not optimal when scaling up further. Thoughts?


apache-spark pyspark
add a comment |
I'm reading in hundreds of XML files into a Spark Dataframe, where each row consist of meta data and time series data for a particular event. Each one of these rows is converted into a rdd to be transformed into batches of documents with a particular key/vale structure and then written over to a database. The XML data need to be broken into batches <50Kb, hence the helper function to produce then batches shown below.
def build_documents(data):
# Make dataframe out of data tags
data = pd.DataFrame([i.split(',') for i in list(chain(*(data)))])
# Helper function to Get Batches
for batch in get_batches(data):
x = batch.T.to_dict()
yield x
def process_partition(partition):
client = document_client.DocumentClient(HOST, 'masterKey': MASTER_KEY )
for element in partition:
generator = build_documents(element)
for batch in generator:
client.CreateDocument(collection_link + 'data', batch)
# Write to Database
df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartition(process_partition)
Still tuning the number of partitions, but any thoughts on how this can be improved? Performance is really slow, as expected with the code implemented so far. The cluster consist of 32 cores, 128.0 GB Memory for both driver and can scale up to 8 executors. As shown below, there is only two workers running, which obviously is not optimal when scaling up further. Thoughts?


apache-spark pyspark
While you seem to have some problems with data distribution it looks more like a problem with your Python code and / or service you use. 21 minutes for 73 records / 38MB looks just unrealistically long. Unless you provide more details it might be hard to help you.
– hi-zir
May 13 '18 at 19:17
add a comment |
I'm reading in hundreds of XML files into a Spark Dataframe, where each row consist of meta data and time series data for a particular event. Each one of these rows is converted into a rdd to be transformed into batches of documents with a particular key/vale structure and then written over to a database. The XML data need to be broken into batches <50Kb, hence the helper function to produce then batches shown below.
def build_documents(data):
# Make dataframe out of data tags
data = pd.DataFrame([i.split(',') for i in list(chain(*(data)))])
# Helper function to Get Batches
for batch in get_batches(data):
x = batch.T.to_dict()
yield x
def process_partition(partition):
client = document_client.DocumentClient(HOST, 'masterKey': MASTER_KEY )
for element in partition:
generator = build_documents(element)
for batch in generator:
client.CreateDocument(collection_link + 'data', batch)
# Write to Database
df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartition(process_partition)
Still tuning the number of partitions, but any thoughts on how this can be improved? Performance is really slow, as expected with the code implemented so far. The cluster consist of 32 cores, 128.0 GB Memory for both driver and can scale up to 8 executors. As shown below, there is only two workers running, which obviously is not optimal when scaling up further. Thoughts?


apache-spark pyspark
I'm reading in hundreds of XML files into a Spark Dataframe, where each row consist of meta data and time series data for a particular event. Each one of these rows is converted into a rdd to be transformed into batches of documents with a particular key/vale structure and then written over to a database. The XML data need to be broken into batches <50Kb, hence the helper function to produce then batches shown below.
def build_documents(data):
# Make dataframe out of data tags
data = pd.DataFrame([i.split(',') for i in list(chain(*(data)))])
# Helper function to Get Batches
for batch in get_batches(data):
x = batch.T.to_dict()
yield x
def process_partition(partition):
client = document_client.DocumentClient(HOST, 'masterKey': MASTER_KEY )
for element in partition:
generator = build_documents(element)
for batch in generator:
client.CreateDocument(collection_link + 'data', batch)
# Write to Database
df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartition(process_partition)
Still tuning the number of partitions, but any thoughts on how this can be improved? Performance is really slow, as expected with the code implemented so far. The cluster consist of 32 cores, 128.0 GB Memory for both driver and can scale up to 8 executors. As shown below, there is only two workers running, which obviously is not optimal when scaling up further. Thoughts?


apache-spark pyspark
apache-spark pyspark
edited May 13 '18 at 1:17
Trace Smith
asked May 12 '18 at 21:17
Trace SmithTrace Smith
3514
3514
While you seem to have some problems with data distribution it looks more like a problem with your Python code and / or service you use. 21 minutes for 73 records / 38MB looks just unrealistically long. Unless you provide more details it might be hard to help you.
– hi-zir
May 13 '18 at 19:17
add a comment |
While you seem to have some problems with data distribution it looks more like a problem with your Python code and / or service you use. 21 minutes for 73 records / 38MB looks just unrealistically long. Unless you provide more details it might be hard to help you.
– hi-zir
May 13 '18 at 19:17
While you seem to have some problems with data distribution it looks more like a problem with your Python code and / or service you use. 21 minutes for 73 records / 38MB looks just unrealistically long. Unless you provide more details it might be hard to help you.
– hi-zir
May 13 '18 at 19:17
While you seem to have some problems with data distribution it looks more like a problem with your Python code and / or service you use. 21 minutes for 73 records / 38MB looks just unrealistically long. Unless you provide more details it might be hard to help you.
– hi-zir
May 13 '18 at 19:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartition(process_partition) will write sequential entries to database. and morever your logic for function process_partition will also be sequential.
You need to multithread the logic for def process_partition. That will speed up the process. Also use df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartitionAsync(process_partition)
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f50310742%2fpyspark-foreachpartition-write-to-database-in-parallel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartition(process_partition) will write sequential entries to database. and morever your logic for function process_partition will also be sequential.
You need to multithread the logic for def process_partition. That will speed up the process. Also use df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartitionAsync(process_partition)
add a comment |
df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartition(process_partition) will write sequential entries to database. and morever your logic for function process_partition will also be sequential.
You need to multithread the logic for def process_partition. That will speed up the process. Also use df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartitionAsync(process_partition)
add a comment |
df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartition(process_partition) will write sequential entries to database. and morever your logic for function process_partition will also be sequential.
You need to multithread the logic for def process_partition. That will speed up the process. Also use df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartitionAsync(process_partition)
df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartition(process_partition) will write sequential entries to database. and morever your logic for function process_partition will also be sequential.
You need to multithread the logic for def process_partition. That will speed up the process. Also use df.rdd.coalesce(20).foreachPartitionAsync(process_partition)
edited Nov 14 '18 at 15:46
K.Dᴀᴠɪs
7,219112439
7,219112439
answered Nov 14 '18 at 15:29
ShyamShyam
412
412
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f50310742%2fpyspark-foreachpartition-write-to-database-in-parallel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
While you seem to have some problems with data distribution it looks more like a problem with your Python code and / or service you use. 21 minutes for 73 records / 38MB looks just unrealistically long. Unless you provide more details it might be hard to help you.
– hi-zir
May 13 '18 at 19:17