hadoop-common-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Loddengaard <a...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Text files vs. SequenceFiles
Date Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:14:02 GMT
Hi David,

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM, David Rosenstrauch <darose@darose.net>wrote:
> * We should use a SequenceFile (binary) format as it's faster for the
> machine to read than parsing text, and the files are smaller.
> * We should use a text file format as it's easier for humans to read,
> easier to change, text files can be compressed quite small, and a) if the
> text format is designed well and b) given the context of a distributed
> system like Hadoop where you can throw more nodes at a problem, the text
> parsing time will wind up being negligible/irrelevant in the overall
> processing time.

SequenceFiles can also be compressed, either per record or per block.  This
is advantageous if you want to use gzip, because gzip isn't splittable.  A
SF compressed by blocks is therefor splittable, because each block is
gzipped vs. the entire file being gzipped.

As for readability, "hadoop fs -text" is the same as "hadoop fs -cat" for

Lastly, I promise that eventually you'll run out of space in your cluster
and wish you did better compression.  Plus compression makes jobs faster.

The general recommendation is to use SequenceFiles as early in your ETL as
possible.  Usually people get their data in as text, and after the first MR
pass they work with SequenceFiles from there on out.


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