crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chandan Biswas <cbiswas1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Process of CombineFn<S,T> returns <S,U>?
Date Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:11:16 GMT
yeah.. i see what you are talking about. But it will take extra effort to
convert to U type. So, is there any specific reason the way CombineFn
created initially that CombineFn will not allow other return type. Was
there any constraints (design / complexity) to restrict to this behavior?
Thanks,


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Micah Whitacre <mkwhit@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chandan,
>    So let's apply your situation to the types and conversion that is
> proposed and break it down where logic will be applied.  Say we have a
> PCollection that is like the following:
>
> Mapper 1:
> <id1, "Hello">
> <id2, "World">
> <id1, "I like turtles">
>
> Mapper 2
> <id2, "Goodbye">
>
> This will be represented by the PTable<String, Comment>.  We then apply a
> MapFn to transform it into PTable<String, Book> and we'd get the following
> in our PCollection:
>
> Mapper 1
> <id1, <"Hello", 1>>
> <id2, <"World", 1>>
> <id1, <"I like turtles", 1>>
>
> Mapper 2
> <id2, <"Goodbye", 1>>
>
> Then if we were to use the GBK + CombineFn, the output of the map phase
> would be..
>
> Mapper 1
> <id2, <"World", 1>>
> <id1, <"I like turtles", 2>>
>
> Mapper 2
> <id2, <"Goodbye", 1>>
>
> Notice Mapper 1 would only be emitting 2 items instead of 3 and therefore
> less data is sent over the wire and has to be sorted.  Also in the reducer
> after the GBK is completed the CombineFn would finish its work and you'd
> get the following:
>
> Reducer 1
> <id2, <"Goodbye", 2>>
> <id1, <"I like turtles", 2>>
>
> The only case where this would not improve performance is if you never emit
> data for the same key from the same mapper or your mapper doesn't reduce
> the size of the data.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Chandan Biswas <cbiswas1983@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I have PTable<String,Comment>. and getting after reduce PTable<String,
> > Book>
> >
> > T--> Comment{ String comment, String author}, U--> Book{String id, String
> > lengthiestComment, int noOfComments}
> >
> > But wanted to some aggregations in the map side based on some logic
> instead
> > of all aggregations at reduce side.
> > Yes in worst case, data flow over the n/w will remain same, but sorting
> > will be improved.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chandan
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Josh Wills <jwills@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Chandan Biswas <cbiswas1983@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, I agree with Micah that it will not eliminate the reduce phase
> > > > entirely. But the dummy object of U suggested by Josh (or converting
> > to U
> > > > type in map for every record)  will not improve performance because
> > same
> > > > amounts of records will be sorted and aggregated in the reduce phase.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think that's true-- the records of type U will be combined on
> the
> > > map-side, which would reduce the amount of data that is pushed over the
> > > network and improve performance.
> > >
> > > Can you give any additional details about what T and U are in this
> > > scenario? :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > But
> > > > my point is, can we improve it by applying a combiner where the
> > combineFn
> > > > provides output as different type. If we have same type, we can use
> the
> > > > combiner to do some aggregation in map side which improves
> performance.
> > > > But, can we have some mechanism by which the same advantage can be
> > > achieved
> > > > when combineFn emits different type. I think, emitting same type by
> > > > CombineFn has restricted its use. Can we have new CombineFn that
> allows
> > > us
> > > > to output different type not only same type as input?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Josh Wills <jwills@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah, my experience in these kinds of situations is that you need
> to
> > > come
> > > > > up with a "dummy" or singleton version of U for the case where
> there
> > is
> > > > > only a single T and do that conversion on the map side of the job,
> > > before
> > > > > the combiner runs. I think Chao had an issue like this awhile ago,
> > > where
> > > > he
> > > > > had a PTable<String, Double> and wanted to write a combiner
that
> > would
> > > > > return a PTable<String, Collection<Double>>. The solution
was to
> > > convert
> > > > > the map-side object to a PTable<String, Collection<Double>>,
where
> > the
> > > > > value on the map-side was a singleton list containing just that
> > double
> > > > > value. Does that sort of trick work here?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Micah Whitacre <mkwhit@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ok so the feature you are trying to achieve is the proactive
> > > > combination
> > > > > of
> > > > > > data before performing the GBK like the javadoc describes.
> > >  Essentially
> > > > > in
> > > > > > that situation the CombineFn is being used as a Combiner[1]
to
> > > combine
> > > > > the
> > > > > > data local to that mapper before doing the GBK and then further
> > > > combining
> > > > > > the data in the reduce operation.  It will not necessarily
> > eliminate
> > > > the
> > > > > > need for all processing in the reduce.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want to use this functionality you will need to do the
> > > > following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PTable<S, T> map to PTable<S, U>
> > > > > > PTable<S, U> gbk to PGT<S, U>
> > > > > > PGT<S, U> combine PTable<S, U>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This will take advantage of any optimization provided by the
> > > CombineFn.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] - http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HadoopMapReduce
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Chandan Biswas <
> > > cbiswas1983@gmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Micah,
> > > > > > > Yes we are using MapFn now. That aggregation and computation
is
> > > being
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > > in reduce phase. As CombineFn after GBK runs into map side,
> then
> > > > those
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > > computations can be done in map side which are now running
in
> > > reduce
> > > > > > phase.
> > > > > > > Some smaller aggregations and computations can be done
on
> reduce
> > > > phase.
> > > > > > > My point was to do some aggregation (and create a new object)
> in
> > > map
> > > > > > phase
> > > > > > > instead of in reduce phase.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Chandan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Micah Whitacre <
> > mkwhit@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chandan,
> > > > > > > >    I think what you are wanting will just be a simple
MapFn
> > > instead
> > > > > of
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > CombineFn.  The doc of the CombineFn[1] sounds like
what you
> > want
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > statement "A special
> > > > > > > > DoFn<
> > > > > >
> http://crunch.apache.org/apidocs/0.7.0/org/apache/crunch/DoFn.html
> > >
> > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > that converts an
> > > > > > > > Iterable<
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Iterable.html?is-external=true
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > values into a single value" but it is expecting the
value to
> be
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > time.  Since you are wanting to combine the values
into a
> > > different
> > > > > > form
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > should be fairly trivial to write a MapFn that converts
the
> > > > > Iterable<T>
> > > > > > > ->
> > > > > > > > U.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] -
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://crunch.apache.org/apidocs/0.7.0/org/apache/crunch/CombineFn.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Chandan Biswas <
> > > > > cbiswas1983@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was trying to refactoring some stuffs and trying
to use
> > > > > combineFn.
> > > > > > > > > But when I went into deeper, found that I can't
do it as
> > Crunch
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > allow it the functionality I needed. For example,
I have a
> > > > > > > > > PGroupedTable<S,T>. I wanted to apply CombineFn<S,T>
on it
> > and
> > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > get PCollection<S,U> instead of T. Right
now, CombineFn
> > allows
> > > > only
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > type as return value. The use case of this need
is that
> there
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > time saving in sorting. It's natural that when
aggregating
> > some
> > > > > > objects
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > map side can create a new different type object.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any thought on it? Am I missing any thing? If
this can be
> > > written
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > different way using existing way please let me
know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Chandan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Director of Data Science
> > > > > Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > > Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Director of Data Science
> > > Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
> > > Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message