spark-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrii Biletskyi <andrii.bilets...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Impact of coalesce operation before writing dataframe
Date Tue, 23 May 2017 19:59:30 GMT
No, I didn't try to use repartition, how exactly it impacts the parallelism?
In my understanding coalesce simply "unions" multiple partitions located on
same executor "one on on top of the other", while repartition does
hash-based shuffle decreasing the number of output partitions. So how this
exactly affects the parallelism, which stage of the job?

Thanks,
Andrii

2017-05-23 22:19 GMT+03:00 Michael Armbrust <michael@databricks.com>:

> coalesce is nice because it does not shuffle, but the consequence of
> avoiding a shuffle is it will also reduce parallelism of the preceding
> computation.  Have you tried using repartition instead?
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Andrii Biletskyi <
> andrii.biletskyi@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm trying to understand the impact of coalesce operation on spark job
>> performance.
>>
>> As a side note: were are using emrfs (i.e. aws s3) as source and a target
>> for the job.
>>
>> Omitting unnecessary details job can be explained as: join 200M records
>> Dataframe stored in orc format on emrfs with another 200M records cached
>> Dataframe, the result of the join put back to emrfs. First DF is a set of
>> wide rows (Spark UI shows 300 GB) and the second is relatively small (Spark
>> shows 20 GB).
>>
>> I have enough resources in my cluster to perform the job but I don't like
>> the fact that output datasource contains 200 part orc files (as
>> spark.sql.shuffle.partitions defaults to 200) so before saving orc to
>> emrfs I'm doing .coalesce(10). From documentation coalesce looks like a
>> quite harmless operations: no repartitioning etc.
>>
>> But with such setup my job fails to write dataset on the last stage.
>> Right now the error is OOM: GC overhead. When I change  .coalesce(10) to
>> .coalesce(100) the job runs much faster and finishes without errors.
>>
>> So what's the impact of .coalesce in this case? And how to do in place
>> concatenation of files (not involving hive) to end up with smaller amount
>> of bigger files, as with .coalesce(100) job generates 100 orc snappy
>> encoded files ~300MB each.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrii
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message