crunch-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Inman,Brandon" <>
Subject Re: Multiple output channels from Crunch DoFn
Date Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:41:08 GMT
I've logged for this.

Brandon Inman | Software Architect | Population Health – Interoperability – GWx Black

From: Josh Wills <<>>
Reply-To: "<>" <<>>
Date: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:47 PM
To: "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: Multiple output channels from Crunch DoFn

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Micah Whitacre <<>>
I view them as separate pieces of functionality.  The splitting of a grouping PType (Pair,
Tuple) seems reusable in a number of contexts.  When we support Unions (or Either) we could
provide similar functionality to split PCollection<Union<T, U>> -> Pair<PCollection<T>,

That's a fair point. Okay, let's go ahead w/the PCollection<Pair<>> -> Pair<PCollection<>>

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Josh Wills <<>>
I'm +1 for the PCollection<Pair<T, U>> -> Pair<PCollection<T>, PCollection<U>>
approach outlined by Brandon and Chao. I think the only question is whether or not we want
to add in the Union<T, U> (or Either<T, U>?) feature as part of doing that change.


On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Inman,Brandon <<>>
This is close to how I had imagined the implementation to look.  Very

 public static class FirstEmittingDoFn<T extends Pair<U, ?>, U> extends
DoFn<Pair<U, ?>, U> {

        public void process(Pair<U, ?> input, Emitter<U> emitter) {
            final U first = input.first();
            if (first != null) {

There would be a very similar DoFn for second() that I'll omit for
brevity. I originally envisioned the utility method calling the DoFn that
generated the pair, but I like the idea of a smaller utility. The utility
method should be as simple as...

public static <T, U> Pair<PCollection<T>,PCollection<U>>
filterChannels(final PCollection<Pair<T,U>> pCollection, final PType<T>
firstPType, final PType<U> secondPType) {

  final PCollection<T> stdout = collection.parallelDo(new
FirstEmittingDoFn<T>, firstPType);
  final PCollection<U> stderr = collection.parallelDo(new
SecondEmittingDoFn<U>, secondPType);

  return Pair.of(stdout,stderr);

Disclaimer; I didn't try to compile (all) this code, so treat as

From:  Josh Wills <<>>
Reply-To:  "<>" <<>>
Date:  Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:40 PM
To:  "<>" <<>>
Subject:  Re: Multiple output channels from Crunch DoFn

That does sound pretty clean...

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Chao Shi
<<>> wrote:

Is it possible to provide a utility that transforms PCollection<Pair<A,
B>> to Pair<PCollection<A>, PCollection<B>>? So one can simply emit
and then write them to two Targets. This could be generalized to Tuples.

2013/8/21 Josh Wills <<>>

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Inman,Brandon <<>>

I like the flexibility of this approach, although would the idea of having
some official constants defined for a small set of standard channels be
reasonable (the concepts of "out" and "error" are pretty common, others
may be warranted as well)?

So I think the way I would handle this would be having a main output
directory and an error output directory that was underneath it. Cascading
does this trick within their existing flows where you can throw exceptions
to "traps," which is essentially the
 same idea, though I'm not wild about control flow that relies on throwing

Is this something that you would see being added to core Crunch APIs (for
example, directly to Pipeline), or implemented on top of Crunch with a
filtering approach similar to my original post?  If it's implemented on
top, shouldn't materialization work

Yes, your model would be simpler. I think that mine would require a
special kind of Target implementation, a custom implementation of the
Emitter interface that would be used for routing the outputs of the DoFn,
and possibly some post-processing code to
 move the data to a sensible place. I don't know if that work is strictly
necessary, and your impl is certainly much more straightforward than mine.

If the type was PTable<String, T>, could Union<S,U> be a choice for T as
appropriate? In our case, we would likely be looking at a PTable<String, T
extends SpecificRecordBase> and not necessarily need Union with this

Yeah, I think it would be fine, but we'd have to be cognizant of it when
we were implementing the union type, and it would be up to the client to
ensure that the right data type ended up in the right file, which is maybe
less good?

From: Josh Wills <<>>
Reply-To: "<>" <<>>
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:00 PM
To: "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: Multiple output channels from Crunch DoFn

A related idea that has come up a few times has been the idea of having a
way of writing values to different files based on a key: some kind of
generalization of Target that would itself write multiple outputs under
the covers, with the name
 of the output file indicated by some function of the key of the PTable.

For this situation, we would have a PTable that was like PTable<String,
Union<S, T>>, or just PTable<String, T> if the output types were all the
same, and the String would specify the name of an output directory (that I
suppose would live underneath some base
 output directory for the Target) that the record would be written to.

There are a couple of limitations to this approach, I think: we couldn't
consider this kind of PTable "materialized" w/o doing an overhaul of the
materialization logic-- it would act sort of like an HTableTarget in that
it would be write-only in flows.
 There are probably some others I can't think of off the top of my head.
What do you guys think?


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Brush,Ryan
<<>> wrote:

I happen to have some context around this, so I wanted to expand on
Brandon's question a bit.  The use case here is we're dealing with a large
volume of third-party input and expect a certain percentage of bogus or
malformed data. Rather than simply logging
 instances of bad records, we want to treat it as a signal we can learn
from, both for improving our processing logic and for creating structured
reports we can use to troubleshoot data sources.

This leads to the "standard out" and "standard error" metaphors Brandon
mentions: in most cases, our Crunch DoFns would emit a processed structure
useful downstream. But we'd also like to be able to emit a structured
error -- probably as an Avro object in our
 case -- and persist that as a byproduct of our main processing pipeline.

Would it make sense for such DoFn's to emit something some form of
"Option" object? We could then attach two consuming functions to it: one
that handles the "success" case, sending the resulting Avro object
downstream. Another DoFn attached to the "Option"
 object would be a no-op unless the Option contained an "error" structure,
at which point we persist it to some well-known location for later

I think this is entirely achievable using existing mechanisms...but it
seems like common enough use case (at least for us) to establish some
idioms for dealing it.

On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Inman,Brandon wrote:

> We've been looking at ways to do multiple outputs in Crunch jobs,
> specifically writing out some kind of Status or Error Avro object, based
> on failures that occur processing individual records in various jobs. It
> had been suggested that, rather than logging these errors to traditional
> loggers, to consider them an output of the Crunch job.  After some
> internal discussion, it was suggested to run the ideas past the Crunch
> community.
> A major goal we have is to end with all the error output in a location
> that makes it easy to run Hive queries or perform other MapReduce-style
> analysis to quickly view all errors across the larger system without the
> need go to multiple facilities.  This means standardizing on the Avro
> object, but it also necessitates decoupling the storage of the object
> the "standard output" of the job.
> As Crunch DoFns support a single Emitter per invocation of process(), the
> solution that gathered the most support would be to emit an object
> to Pair<>, where first would be the "standard out" and second would be
> "standard error".  A DoFn would generally only populate one (nothing
> preventing it from populating both if appropriate, but not really
> as a part of general use), and separate DoFns would filter out the two
> components of the pair and write the values to the appropriate targets.
> As far as the emitted pairing object; the concept of a tagged union was
> suggested although there currently isn't support in Java or Avro for the
> concept; it was noted that
 might be a close
> candidate. Pair<> would meet the requirements, although it was suggested
> that a simple object dedicated to the task could make a cleaner approach.
> Any general thoughts on this approach? Are there any other patterns that
> might serve us better, or anything on the Crunch roadmap that might be
> more appropriate?
> Brandon Inman
> Software Architect
><> <>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any included attachments are
>from Cerner Corporation and are intended only for the addressee. The
>information contained in this message is confidential and may constitute
>inside or non-public information under international,
 federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing,
copying, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete
this message and notify the sender of the
 delivery error by e-mail or you may call Cerner's corporate offices in
Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A at

(+1) (816)221-1024<tel:%28%2B1%29%20%28816%29221-1024> <tel:%28%2B1%29%20%28816%29221-1024>.

Director of Data Science

Director of Data Science

Director of Data Science
Twitter: @josh_wills<>

Director of Data Science
Twitter: @josh_wills<>
View raw message