I run PySpark 3.1 on a Windows computer with local mode on Jupyter Notebook. I call "applyInPandas" on Spark DataFrame.
Below function applies a few data transformations to input Pandas DataFrame, and trains an SGBT model. Then it serializes the trained model into binary and saves to S3 bucket as object. Finally it returns the DataFrame. I call this function from a Spark DataFrame grouped by two columns in the last line. I receive no error and the returned DataFrame is as the same length as the input. Data for each group is returned.
The problem is the saved model objects. There are objects saved in S3 only for 2 groups when there were supposed to be models for each group. There is no missing/wrong data point that would cause model training to fail. (I'd receive an error or warning anyway.) What I have tried so far:
Replace S3 and save to local file system: The same result.
Replace "pickle" with "joblib" and "BytesIO": The same result.
Repartition before calling the function: Now I had more objects saved for different groups, but not all. [I did this by calling "val_large_df.coalesce(1).groupby('la..." in the last line.]
So I suspect this is about parallelism and distribution, but I could not figure it out. Thank you already.
def train_sgbt(pdf):
##Some data transformations here##
#Train the model
sgbt_mdl=GradientBoostingRegressor(--Params.--).fit(--Params.--)
sgbt_mdl_b=pickle.dumps(sgbt_mdl) #Serialize
#Initiate s3_client
s3_client = boto3.client(--Params.--)
#Put file in S3
s3_client.put_object(Body=sgbt_mdl_b, Bucket='my-bucket-name',
Key="models/BT_"+str(pdf.latGroup_m[0])+"_"+str(pdf.lonGroup_m[0])+".mdl")
return pdf
dummy_df=val_large_df.groupby("latGroup_m","lonGroup_m").applyInPandas(train_sgbt,
schema="fcast_error double")
dummy_df.show()
Spark evaluates the dummy_df lazy and therefore train_sgbt will only be called for the groups that are required to complete the Spark action.
The Spark action here is show(). This action prints only the first 20 rows, so train_sgbt is only called for the groups that have at least one element in the first 20 rows. Spark may evaluate more groups, but there is no guarantee for it.
One way to solve to problem would be to call another action, for example csv.
Related
I am doing some simulation where I compute some stuff for several time step. For each I want to save a parquet file where each line correspond to a simulation this looks like so :
def simulation():
nsim = 3
timesteps = [1,2]
data = {} #initialization not shown here
for i in nsim:
compute_stuff()
for j in timesteps:
data[str(j)]= compute_some_other_stuff()
return data
Once I have my dict data containing the result of my simulation (under numpy arrays), I transform it into dask.DataFrame objects to then save them to file using the .to_parquet() method as follows:
def save(data):
for i in data.keys():
data[i] = pd.DataFrame(data[i], bins=...)
df = from_pandas(data[i], npartitions=2)
f.to_parquet(datafolder + i + "/", engine="pyarrow", append=True, ignore_divisions = True)
When use this code only once it works perfectly and the struggle arrises when I try to implement it in parallel. Using dask I do:
client = Client(n_workers=10, processes=True)
def f():
data = simulation()
save(data)
to_compute = [delayed(f)(n) for n in range(20)]
compute(to_compute)
The behaviour of this last portion of code is quite random. At some point this happens:
distributed.worker - WARNING - Compute Failed
Function: f
args: (4)
kwargs: {}
Exception: "ArrowInvalid('Parquet file size is 0 bytes')"
....
distributed.worker - WARNING - Compute Failed
Function: f
args: (12)
kwargs: {}
Exception: "ArrowInvalid('Parquet magic bytes not found in footer. Either the file is corrupted or this is not a parquet file.')"
I think these errors are due to the fact that 2 processes try to write at the same time to the same parquet file, and it not well handled (as it can be on txt file). I already tried to switch to pySpark / Koalas without much success. I there a better way to save the result along a simulation (in case of a crash / wall time on a cluster)?
You are making a classic dask mistake of invoking the dask API from within functions that are themselves delayed. The error indicates that things are happening in parallel (which is what dask does!) which are not expected to change during processing. Specifically, a file is clearly being edited by one task while another one is reading it (not sure which).
What you probably want to do, is use concat on the dataframe pieces and then a single call to to_parquet.
Note that it seems all of your data is actually held in the client, and you are using from_parquet. This seems like a bad idea, since you are missing out on one of dask's biggest features, to only load data when needed. You should, instead, load your data inside delayed functions or dask dataframe API calls.
I have some instrumental data which saved in hdf-5 format as multiple 2-d array along with the measuring time. As attached figures below, d1 and d2 are two independent file in which the instrument recorded in different time. They have the same data variables, and the only difference is the length of phony_dim_0, which represet the total data points varying with measurement time.
These files need to be loaded to a specific software provided by the instrument company for obtaining meaningful results. I want to merge multiple files with Python xarray while keeping in their original format, and then loaed one merged file into the software.
Here is my attempt:
files = os.listdir("DATA_PATH")
d1 = xarray.open_dataset(files[0])
d2 = xarray.open_dataset(files[1])
## copy a new one to save the merged data array.
d0 = d1
vars_ = [c for c in d1]
for var in vars_:
d0[var].values = np.vstack([d1[var],d2[var]])
The error shows like this:
replacement data must match the Variable's shape. replacement data has shape (761, 200); Variable has shape (441, 200)
I thought about two solution for this problem:
expanding the dimension length to the total length of all merged files.
creating a new empty dataframe in the same format of d1 and d2.
However, I still could not figure out the function to achieve that. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
Supplemental information
dataset example [d1],[d2]
I'm not familiar with xarray, so can't help with your code. However, you don't need xarray to copy HDF5 data; h5py is designed to work nicely with HDF5 data as NumPy arrays, and is all you need to get merge the data.
A note about Xarray. It uses different nomenclature than HDF5 and h5py. Xarray refers to the files as 'datasets', and calls the HDF5 datasets 'data variables'. HDF5/h5py nomenclature is more frequently used, so I am going to use it for the rest of my post.
There are some things to consider when merging datasets across 2 or more HDF5 files. They are:
Consistency of the data schema (which you have checked).
Consistency of attributes. If datasets have different attribute names or values, the merge process gets a lot more complicated! (Yours appear to be consistent.)
It's preferable to create resizabe datasets in the merged file. This simplifies the process, as you don't need to know the total size when you initially create the dataset. Better yet, you can add more data later (if/when you have more files).
I looked at your files. You have 8 HDF5 datasets in each file. One nice thing: the datasets are resizble. That simplifies the merge process. Also, although your datasets have a lot of attributes, they appear to be common in both files. That also simplifies the process.
The code below goes through the following steps to merge the data.
Open the new merge file for writing
Open the first data file (read-only)
Loop thru all data sets
a. use the group copy function to copy the dataset (data plus maxshape parameters, and attribute names and values).
Open the second data file (read-only)
Loop thru all data sets and do the following:
a. get the size of the 2 datasets (existing and to be added)
b. increase the size of HDF5 dataset with .resize() method
c. write values from dataset to end of existing dataset
At the end it loops thru all 3 files and prints shape and
maxshape for all datasets (for visual comparison).
Code below:
import h5py
files = [ '211008_778183_m.h5', '211008_778624_m.h5', 'merged_.h5' ]
# Create the merge file:
with h5py.File('merged_.h5','w') as h5fw:
# Open first HDF5 file and copy each dataset.
# Will use maxhape and attributes from existing dataset.
with h5py.File(files[0],'r') as h5fr:
for ds in h5fr.keys():
h5fw.copy(h5fr[ds], h5fw, name=ds)
# Open second HDF5 file and copy data from each dataset.
# Resizes existing dataset as needed to hold new data.
with h5py.File(files[1],'r') as h5fr:
for ds in h5fr.keys():
ds_a0 = h5fw[ds].shape[0]
add_a0 = h5fr[ds].shape[0]
h5fw[ds].resize(ds_a0+add_a0,axis=0)
h5fw[ds][ds_a0:] = h5fr[ds][:]
for fname in files:
print(f'Working on file:{fname}')
with h5py.File(fname,'r') as h5f:
for ds, h5obj in h5f.items():
print (f'for: {ds}; axshape={h5obj.shape}, maxshape={h5obj.maxshape}')
If i read a file in pyspark:
Data = spark.read(file.csv)
Then for the life of the spark session, the ‘data’ is available in memory,correct? So if i call data.show() 5 times, it will not read from disk 5 times. Is it correct? If yes, why do i need:
Data.cache()
If i read a file in pyspark:
Data = spark.read(file.csv)
Then for the life of the spark session, the ‘data’ is available in memory,correct?
No. Nothing happens here due to Spark lazy evaluation, which happens upon the first call to show() in your case.
So if i call data.show() 5 times, it will not read from disk 5 times. Is it correct?
No. The dataframe will be re-evaluated for each call to show. Caching the dataframe will prevent that re-evaluation, forcing the data to be read from cache instead.
I have some parquet files, all coming from the same domain but with some differences in structure. I need to concatenate all of them. Below some example of these files:
file 1:
A,B
True,False
False,False
file 2:
A,C
True,False
False,True
True,True
What I am looking to do is to read and concatenate these files in the fastest way possible obtaining the following result:
A,B,C
True,False,NaN
False,False,NaN
True,NaN,False
False,NaN,True
True,NaN,True
To do that I am using the following code, extracted using (Reading multiple files with Dask, Dask dataframes: reading multiple files & storing filename in column):
import glob
import dask.dataframe as dd
from dask.distributed import Client
import dask
def read_parquet(path):
return pd.read_parquet(path)
if __name__=='__main__':
files = glob.glob('test/*/file.parquet')
print('Start dask client...')
client = Client()
results = [dd.from_delayed(dask.delayed(read_parquet)(diag)) for diag in diag_files]
results = dd.concat(results).compute()
client.close()
This code works, and it is already the fastest version I could come up with (I tried sequential pandas and multiprocessing.Pool). My idea was that Dask could ideally start part of the concatenation while still reading some of the files, however, from the task graph I see some sequential reading of the metadata of each parquet file, see the screenshot below:
The first part of the task graph is a mixture of read_parquet followed by read_metadata. The first part always shows only 1 task executed (in the task processing tab). The second part is a combination of from_delayed and concat and it is using all of my workers.
Any suggestion on how to speed up the file reading and reduce the execution time of the first part of the graph?
The problem with your code is that you use Pandas version of
read_parquet.
Instead use:
dask version of read_parquet,
map and gather methods offered by Client,
dask version of concat,
Something like:
def read_parquet(path):
return dd.read_parquet(path)
def myRead():
L = client.map(read_parquet, glob.glob('file_*.parquet'))
lst = client.gather(L)
return dd.concat(lst)
result = myRead().compute()
Before that I created a client, once only.
The reason was that during my earlier experiments I got an error
message when I attempted to create it again (in a function), even
though the first instance has been closed before.
I am using pyspark to process 50Gb data using AWS EMR with ~15 m4.large cores.
Each row of the data contains some information at a specific time on a day. I am using the following for loop to extract and aggregate information for every hour. Finally I union the data, as I want my result to save in one csv file.
# daily_df is a empty pyspark DataFrame
for hour in range(24):
hourly_df = df.filter(hourFilter("Time")).groupby("Animal").agg(mean("weights"), sum("is_male"))
daily_df = daily_df.union(hourly_df)
As of my knowledge, I have to perform the following to force the pyspark.sql.Dataframe object to save to 1 csv files (approx 1Mb) instead of 100+ files:
daily_df.coalesce(1).write.csv("some_local.csv")
It seems it took about 70min to finish this progress, and I am wondering if I can make it faster by using collect() method like?
daily_df_pandas = daily_df.collect()
daily_df_pandas.to_csv("some_local.csv")
Both coalesce(1) and collect are pretty bad in general but with expected output size around 1MB it doesn't really matter. It simply shouldn't be a bottleneck here.
One simple improvement is to drop loop -> filter -> union and perform a single aggregation:
df.groupby(hour("Time"), col("Animal")).agg(mean("weights"), sum("is_male"))
If that's not enough then most likely the issue here is configuration (the good place to start could be adjusting spark.sql.shuffle.partitions if you don't do that already).
To save as single file these are options
Option 1 :
coalesce(1) (minimum shuffle data over network) or repartition(1) or collect may work for small data-sets, but large data-sets it may not perform, as expected.since all data will be moved to one partition on one node
option 1 would be fine if a single executor has more RAM for use than the driver.
Option 2 :
Other option would be FileUtil.copyMerge() - to merge the outputs into a single file like below code snippet.
import org.apache.hadoop.conf.Configuration
import org.apache.hadoop.fs._
def merge(srcPath: String, dstPath: String): Unit = {
val hadoopConfig = new Configuration()
val hdfs = FileSystem.get(hadoopConfig)
FileUtil.copyMerge(hdfs, new Path(srcPath), hdfs, new Path(dstPath), false, hadoopConfig, null)
}
Option 3 :
after getting part files you can use hdfs getMerge command like this...
hadoop fs -getmerge /tmp/demo.csv /localmachine/tmp/demo.csv
Now you have to decide based on your requirements... which one is safer/faster
also, can have look at Dataframe save after join is creating numerous part files