Sorry for a newbie question.
Currently I have log files which contains fields such as: userId, event, and timestamp, while lacking of the sessionId. My aim is to create a sessionId for each record based on the timestamp and a pre-defined value TIMEOUT.
If the TIMEOUT value is 10, and sample DataFrame is:
scala> eventSequence.show(false)
+----------+------------+----------+
|uerId |event |timestamp |
+----------+------------+----------+
|U1 |A |1 |
|U2 |B |2 |
|U1 |C |5 |
|U3 |A |8 |
|U1 |D |20 |
|U2 |B |23 |
+----------+------------+----------+
The goal is:
+----------+------------+----------+----------+
|uerId |event |timestamp |sessionId |
+----------+------------+----------+----------+
|U1 |A |1 |S1 |
|U2 |B |2 |S2 |
|U1 |C |5 |S1 |
|U3 |A |8 |S3 |
|U1 |D |20 |S4 |
|U2 |B |23 |S5 |
+----------+------------+----------+----------+
I find one solution in R (Create a "sessionID" based on "userID" and differences in "timeStamp"), while I am not able to figure it out in Spark.
Thanks for any suggestions on this problem.
Shawn's answer regards on "How to create a new column", while my aim is to "How to create an sessionId column based on timestamp". After days of struggling, the Window function is applied in this scenario as a simple solution.
Window is introduced since Spark 1.4, it provides functions when such operations is needed:
both operate on a group of rows while still returning a single value for every input row
In order to create a sessionId based on timestamp, first I need to get the difference between user A's two immediate operations. The windowDef defines the Window will be partition by "userId" and ordered by timestamp, then diff is a column which will return a value for each row, whose value will be 1 row after the current row in the partition(group), or null if the current row is the last row in this partition
def handleDiff(timeOut: Int) = {
udf {(timeDiff: Int, timestamp: Int) => if(timeDiff > timeOut) timestamp + ";" else timestamp + ""}
}
val windowDef = Window.partitionBy("userId").orderBy("timestamp")
val diff: Column = lead(eventSequence("timestamp"), 1).over(windowDef)
val dfTSDiff = eventSequence.
withColumn("time_diff", diff - eventSequence("timestamp")).
withColumn("event_seq", handleDiff(TIME_OUT)(col("time_diff"), col("timestamp"))).
groupBy("userId").agg(GroupConcat(col("event_seq")).alias("event_seqs"))
Updated:
Then exploit the Window function to apply the "cumsum"-like operation (provided in Pandas):
// Define a Window, partitioned by userId (partitionBy), ordered by timestamp (orderBy), and delivers all rows before current row in this partition as frame (rowsBetween)
val windowSpec = Window.partitionBy("userId").orderBy("timestamp").rowsBetween(Long.MinValue, 0)
val sessionDf = dfTSDiff.
withColumn("ts_diff_flag", genTSFlag(TIME_OUT)(col("time_diff"))).
select(col("userId"), col("eventSeq"), col("timestamp"), sum("ts_diff_flag").over(windowSpec).alias("sessionInteger")).
withColumn("sessionId", genSessionId(col("userId"), col("sessionInteger")))
Previously:
Then split by ";" and get each session, create a sessionId; afterwards split by "," and explodes to final result. Thus sessionId is created with the help of string operations.
(This part should be replaced by cumulative sum operation instead, however I did not find a good solution)
Any idea or thought about this question is welcomed.
GroupConcat could be found here: SPARK SQL replacement for mysql GROUP_CONCAT aggregate function
Reference: databricks introduction
dt.withColumn('sessionId', expression for the new column sessionId)
for example:
dt.timestamp + pre-defined value TIMEOUT
Related
Beeing pretty new to Power Query, I find myself faced with this problem I wish to solve.
I have a TableA with these columns. Example:
Key | Sprint | Index
-------------------------
A | PI1-I1 | 1
A | PI1-I2 | 2
B | PI1-I3 | 1
C | PI1-I1 | 1
I want to end up with a set looking like this:
Key | Sprint | Index | HasSpillOver
-------------------------
A | PI1-I1 | 1 | Yes
A | PI2-I2 | 2 | No
B | PI1-I3 | 1 | No
C | PI1-I1 | 1 | No
I thought I could maybe nestedjoin TableA on itself and then compare indicies and strip them away and then count rows in the table, like outlined below.
TableA=Key, Sprint, Index
// TableA Nested joined on itself (Key, Sprint, Index, Nested)
TableB=NestedJoin(#"TableA", "Key", #"TableA", "Key", "Nested", JoinKind.Inner)
TableC= Table.TransformColumns(#"TableB", {"Nested", (x)=>Table.SelectRows(x, each [Index] <x[Index])} )
.. and then do the count, however this throws an error:
Can not apply operator < on types List and Number.
Any suggestions how to approach this problem? Possibly (probably) in a different way.
You did not define very well what "spillover" means but this should get you most of the way
Mine assumes adding another index. You could use what you have if it is relevant
Then the code counts the number of rows where the (2nd) index is higher, and the [Key] field matches. You could add code so that the Sprint field matches as well if relevant
let Source = Excel.CurrentWorkbook(){[Name="Table1"]}[Content],
#"Added Index" = Table.AddIndexColumn(Source, "Index.1", 0, 1),
#"Added Custom" = Table.AddColumn(#"Added Index" ,"Count",(i)=>Table.RowCount(Table.SelectRows(#"Added Index" , each [Key]=i[Key] and [Index.1]>i[Index.1])))
in #"Added Custom"
I have following data
start stop status
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 09:01:10 | 09:01:40 | active |
| 09:02:30 | 09:04:50 | active |
| 09:10:01 | 09:11:50 | active |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
I want to fill in the gaps with "passive"
start stop status
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 09:01:10 | 09:01:40 | active |
| 09:01:40 | 09:02:30 | passive |
| 09:02:30 | 09:04:50 | active |
| 09:04:50 | 09:10:01 | passive |
| 09:10:01 | 09:11:50 | active |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
How can I do this in M Query language?
You could try something like the below (my first two steps someTable and changedTypes are just to re-create your sample data on my end):
let
someTable = Table.FromColumns({{"09:01:10", "09:02:30", "09:10:01"}, {"09:01:40", "09:04:50", "09:11:50"}, {"active", "active", "active"}}, {"start","stop","status"}),
changedTypes = Table.TransformColumnTypes(someTable, {{"start", type duration}, {"stop", type duration}, {"status", type text}}),
listOfRecords = Table.ToRecords(changedTypes),
transformList = List.Accumulate(List.Skip(List.Positions(listOfRecords)), {listOfRecords{0}}, (listState, currentIndex) =>
let
previousRecord = listOfRecords{currentIndex-1},
currentRecord = listOfRecords{currentIndex},
thereIsAGap = currentRecord[start] <> previousRecord[stop],
recordsToAdd = if thereIsAGap then {[start=previousRecord[stop], stop=currentRecord[start], status="passive"], currentRecord} else {currentRecord},
append = listState & recordsToAdd
in
append
),
backToTable = Table.FromRecords(transformList, type table [start=duration, stop=duration, status=text])
in
backToTable
This is what I start off with (at the changedTypes step):
This is what I end up with:
To integrate with your existing M code, you'll probably need to:
remove someTable and changedTypes from my code (and replace with your existing query)
change changedTypes in the listOfRecords step to whatever your last step is called (otherwise you'll get an error if you don't have a changedTypes expression in your code).
Edit:
Further to my answer, what I would suggest is:
Try changing this line in the code above:
listOfRecords = Table.ToRecords(changedTypes),
to
listOfRecords = List.Buffer(Table.ToRecords(changedTypes)),
I found that storing the list in memory reduced my refresh time significantly (maybe ~90% if quantified). I imagine there are limits and drawbacks (e.g. if the list can't fit), but might be okay for your use case.
Do you experience similar behaviour? Also, my basic graph indicates non-linear complexity of the code overall unfortunately.
Final note: I found that generating and processing 100k rows resulted in a stack overflow whilst refreshing the query (this might have been due to the generation of input rows and may not the insertion of new rows, don't know). So clearly, this approach has limits.
I think I may have a better performing solution.
From your source table (assuming it's sorted), add an index column starting from 0 and an index column starting from 1 and then merge the table with itself doing a left outer join on the index columns and expand the start column.
Remove columns except for stop, status, and start.1 and filter out nulls.
Rename columns to start, status, and stop and replace "active" with "passive".
Finally, append this table to your original table.
let
Source = Table.RenameColumns(#"Removed Columns",{{"Column1.2", "start"}, {"Column1.3", "stop"}, {"Column1.4", "status"}}),
Add1Index = Table.AddIndexColumn(Source, "Index", 1, 1),
Add0Index = Table.AddIndexColumn(Add1Index, "Index.1", 0, 1),
SelfMerge = Table.NestedJoin(Add0Index,{"Index"},Add0Index,{"Index.1"},"Added Index1",JoinKind.LeftOuter),
ExpandStart1 = Table.ExpandTableColumn(SelfMerge, "Added Index1", {"start"}, {"start.1"}),
RemoveCols = Table.RemoveColumns(ExpandStart1,{"start", "Index", "Index.1"}),
FilterNulls = Table.SelectRows(RemoveCols, each ([start.1] <> null)),
RenameCols = Table.RenameColumns(FilterNulls,{{"stop", "start"}, {"start.1", "stop"}}),
ActiveToPassive = Table.ReplaceValue(RenameCols,"active","passive",Replacer.ReplaceText,{"status"}),
AppendQuery = Table.Combine({Source, ActiveToPassive}),
#"Sorted Rows" = Table.Sort(AppendQuery,{{"start", Order.Ascending}})
in
#"Sorted Rows"
This should be O(n) complexity with similar logic to #chillin, but I think should be faster than using a custom function since it will be using a built-in merge which is likely to be highly optimized.
I would approach this as follows:
Duplicate the first table.
Replace "active" with "passive".
Remove the start column.
Rename stop to start.
Create a new stop column by looking up the earliest start time from your original table that occurs after the current stop time.
Filter out nulls in this new column.
Append this table to the original table.
The M code will look something like this:
let
Source = <...your starting table...>
PassiveStatus = Table.ReplaceValue(Source,"active","passive",Replacer.ReplaceText,{"status"}),
RemoveStart = Table.RemoveColumns(PassiveStatus,{"start"}),
RenameStart = Table.RenameColumns(RemoveStart,{{"stop", "start"}}),
AddStop = Table.AddColumn(RenameStart, "stop", (C) => List.Min(List.Select(Source[start], each _ > C[start])), type time),
RemoveNulls = Table.SelectRows(AddStop, each ([stop] <> null)),
CombineTables = Table.Combine({Source, RemoveNulls}),
#"Sorted Rows" = Table.Sort(CombineTables,{{"start", Order.Ascending}})
in
#"Sorted Rows"
The only tricky bit above is the custom column part where I define the new column like this:
(C) => List.Min(List.Select(Source[start], each _ > C[start]))
This takes each item in the column/list Source[start] and compares it to the time in the current row. It selects only the ones that occur after the time in the current row and then take the min over that list to find the earliest one.
I have a dataframe with a field transactionId and I want to sample on this
field. I'm wanting to sample on the hash of the field because the sampled data will be join to the sample of another sampled dataframe and I want tohave the same ids in both samples. Problem is I'm getting stuck on how to hash and mod within a filter, having tried various versions of this
scala> val dfSampled = df.filter($"transactionId".hashCode() % 10 == 0)
<console>:27: error: overloaded method value filter with alternatives:
(conditionExpr: String)org.apache.spark.sql.DataFrame <and>
(condition: org.apache.spark.sql.Column)org.apache.spark.sql.DataFrame
cannot be applied to (Boolean)
val dfSampled = df.filter($"transactionId".hashCode() % 10 == 0)
^
`
Can anyone give me some advice
This incorrect for two different reasons:
you take hash of a column object not values in the DataFrame,
you use incorrect equality operator.
Correct solution would be something like this:
import org.apache.spark.sql.functions.hash
val df = sc.range(1L, 100L).toDF("transactionId").show
// +-------------+
// |transactionId|
// +-------------+
// | 4|
// | 16|
// | 18|
// | 26|
// | 27|
// +-------------+
df.filter(hash($"transactionId") % 10 === 0)
Please note that it is using Murmur3Hash not hash codes.
I am trying to make a table store 3 parts which will each be huge in length. The first is the name, second is EID, third is SID. I want to be able to get the information like this name[1] gives me the first name in the list of names, and like so for the other two. I'm running into problems with how to do this because it seems like everyone has their own way which are all very very different from one another. right now this is what I have.
info = {
{name = "btest", EID = "19867", SID = "664"},
{name = "btest1", EID = "19867", SID = "664"},
{name = "btest2", EID = "19867", SID = "664"},
{name = "btest3", EID = "19867", SID = "664"},
}
Theoretically speaking would i be able to just say info.name[1]? Or how else would I be able to arrange the table so I can access each part separately?
There are two main "ways" of storing the data:
Horizontal partitioning (Object-oriented)
Store each row of the data in a table. All tables must have the same fields.
Advantages: Each table contains related data, so it's easier passing it around (e.g, f(info[5])).
Disadvantages: A table is to be created for each element, adding some overhead.
This looks exactly like your example:
info = {
{name = "btest", EID = "19867", SID = "664"},
-- etc ...
}
print(info[2].names) -- access second name
Vertical partioning (Array-oriented)
Store each property in a table. All tables must have the same length.
Advantages: Less tables overall, and slightly more time and space efficient (Lua VM uses actual arrays).
Disadvantages: Needs two objects to refer to a row: the table and the index. It's harder to insert/delete.
Your example would look like this:
info = {
names = { "btest", "btest1", "btest2", "btest3", },
EID = { "19867", "19867", "19867", "19867", },
SID = { "664", "664", "664", "664", },
}
print(info.names[2]) -- access second name
So which one should I choose?
Unless you are really need performance, you should go with horizontal partitioning. It's far more common working over full rows, and gives you more freedom in how you use your structures. If you decide to go full OO, having your data in horizontal form will be much easier.
Addendum
The names "horizontal" and "vertical" come from the table representation of a relational database.
| names | EID | SID | | names |
--+-------+-----+-----+ +-------+
1 | | | | | | --+-------+-----+-----+
2 | | | | | | 2 | | | |
3 | | | | | | --+-------+-----+-----+
Your info table is an array, so you can access items using info[N] where N is any number from 1 to the number of items in the table. Each field of the info table is itself a table. The 2nd item of info is info[2], so the name field of that item is info[2].name.
I have the following tables:
types | id | name
------+----+----------
1 | A
2 | B
4 | C
8 | D
16| E
32| F
and
vendors | id | name | type
--------+----+----------+-----
1 | Alex | 2 //type B only
2 | Bob | 5 //A,C
3 | Cheryl | 32 //F
4 | David | 43 //F,D,A,B
5 | Ed | 15 //A,B,C,D
6 | Felix | 8 //D
7 | Gopal | 4 //C
8 | Herry | 9 //A,D
9 | Iris | 7 //A,B,C
10| Jack | 23 //A,B,C,E
I would like to query now:
select id, name from vendors where type & 16 >0 //should return Jack as he is type E
select id, name from vendors where type & 7 >0 //should return Ed, Iris, Jack
select id, name from vendors where type & 8 >0 //should return David, Ed, Felix, Herry
What is the best possible index for tables types and vendors in postgres? I may have millions of rows in vendors. Moreover, what are the tradeoffs of using this bitwise method compared with Many To Many relation using a 3rd table? Which is better?
Use can use partial indices to work around the fact that "&" isn't an indexable operator (afaik):
CREATE INDEX vendors_typeA ON vendors(id) WHERE (type & 2) > 0;
CREATE INDEX vendors_typeB ON vendors(id) WHERE (type & 4) > 0;
Of course, you'll need to add a new index every time you add a new type. Which is one of the reasons for expanding the data into an association table which can then be indexed properly. You can always write triggers to maintain a bitmask table additionally, but use the many-to-many table to actually maintain the data normally, as it will be much clearer.
If your entire evaluation of scaling and performance is to say "I may have millions of rows", you haven't done enough to start going for this sort of optimisation. Create a properly-structured clear model first, optimise it later on the basis of real statistics about how it performs.