Can anyone help me out finding correct API to improve write performance?
We use MultipleOutputs<ImmutableBytesWritable, Result> class to write data we read from a table, we use the newly created file as a backup. We face performance issue in write using MultipleOutputs, it takes nearly 5 seconds for every 10000 records we write.
This is the code we use:
Result[] results = // result from another table
MultipleOutputs<ImmutableBytesWritable, Result> mos = new MultipleOutputs<ImmutableBytesWritable, Result> ();
for(Result res : results ){
mos.write(new ImmutableBytesWritable(result.getRow()), result, baseoutputpath);
}
We get a batch of 10000 rows and write them in a loop, with baseoutputpath changing depending on Result content.
We are facing performance dip when writing into MultipleOutputs, we suspect that it might be due to writing in a loop.
Is there any other API in maprdb or HBase which push data to database using fewer RPC calls by buffering upto certain limit.
We write data as records so no file system write class would work for us.
Please note that we use mapreduce job to do all of the above.
I have madde a dataaframe which I repartitined based on its primary key on the nodes
val config=new SparkConf().setAppName("MyHbaseLoader").setMaster("local[10]")
val context=new SparkContext(config)
val sqlContext=new SQLContext(context)
val rows="sender,time,time(utc),reason,context-uuid,rat,cell-id,first-pkt,last-pkt,protocol,sub-proto,application-id,server-ip,server-domain-name, http-proxy-ip,http-proxy-domain-name, video,packets-dw, packets-ul, bytes-dw, bytes-ul"
val scheme= new StructType(rows.split(",").map(e=>new StructField(e.trim,StringType,true)))
val dFrame=sqlContext.read
.schema(scheme)
.format("csv")
.load("E:\\Users\\Mehdi\\Downloads\\ProbDocument\\ProbDocument\\ggsn_cdr.csv")
dFrame.registerTempTable("GSSN")
dFrame.persist(StorageLevel.MEMORY_AND_DISK)
val distincCount=sqlContext.sql("select count(distinct sender) as SENDERS from GSSN").collectAsList().get(0).get(0).asInstanceOf[Long]
dFrame.repartition(distincCount.toInt/3,dFrame("sender"))
Do I need to call my presist method again after repartitioning for next reducing jobs on dataframe?
Yes, repartition returns a new DataFrame so you would need to cache it again.
While the answer provided by Dikei seems to address your direct question it is important to note that in a case like this there is typically no reason to explicitly cache at all.
Every shuffle in Spark (here it is repartition) serves as an implicit caching point. If some part of lineage has to be re-executed and none of the executors has been lost you it won't have to go further back than to the last shuffle and read shuffle files.
It means that caching just before or just after a shuffle is typically a waste of time and resources especially if you're not interested in in-memory only or some non standard caching mechanism.
You would need to persist the reparation DataFrame, since DataFrames are immutable and reparation returns a new DataFrame.
A approach which you could follow is to persist dFrame and after its reparation the new DataFrame which returned is dFrameRepart. At this stage you could persist the dFrameRepart and unpersist the dFrame in order to free up the memory, provided that you won't be using dFrame again. In case your using dFrame after the reparation operation , both the DataFrames can be persisted.
dFrame.registerTempTable("GSSN")
dFrame.persist(StorageLevel.MEMORY_AND_DISK)
val distincCount=sqlContext.sql("select count(distinct sender) as SENDERS from GSSN").collectAsList().get(0).get(0).asInstanceOf[Long]
valdFrameRepart=dFrame.repartition(distincCount.toInt/3, dFrame("sender")).persist(StorageLevel.MEMORY_AND_DISK)
dFrame.unpersist
inputRDD = sc.textFile("log.txt")
errorsRDD = inputRDD.filter(lambda x: "error" in x)
warningsRDD = inputRDD.filter(lambda x: "warning" in x)
badLinesRDD = errorsRDD.union(warningsRDD)
badLinesCount = badLinesRDD.count()
warningCount = warningsRDD.count()
In the code above none of the transformations are evaluated until the second to last line of code is executed where you count the number of objects in the badLinesRDD. So when this badLinesRDD.count() is run it will compute the first four RDD's up till the union and return you the result. But when warningsRDD.count() is run it will only compute the transformation RDD's until the top 3 lines and return you a result correct?
Also when these RDD transformations are computed when an action is called on them where are the objects from the last RDD transformation, which is union, stored? Does it get stored in memory on the each of the DataNodes where the filter transformation was run in parallel?
Unless task output is persisted explicitly (cache, persist for example) or implicitly (shuffle write) and there is enough free space every action will execute complete lineage.
So when you call warningsRDD.count() it will load the file (sc.textFile("log.txt")) and filter (inputRDD.filter(lambda x: "warning" in x)).
Also when these RDD transformations are computed when an action is called on them where are the objects from the last RDD transformation, which is union, stored?
Assuming data is not persisted, nowhere. All task outputs are discarded after data is passed to the next stage or output. If data is persisted it depends on the settings (disk, on-heap, off-heap, DFS).
Retrieving data from mongo takes too long, even for small datasets. For bigger datasets we get out of memory errors of the javascript engine. We've tried several schema designs and several ways to retrieve data. How do we optimize mongoDB/mapReduce function/MongoWire to retrieve more data quicker?
We're not very experienced with MongoDB yet and are therefore not sure whether we're missing optimization steps or if we're just using the wrong tools.
1. Background
For graphing and playback purposes we want to store changes for several objects over time. Currently we have tens of objects per project, but expectations are we need to store thousands of objects. The objects may change every second or not change for long periods of time. A Delphi backend writes to and reads from MongoDB through MongoWire and SuperObjects, the data is displayed in a web frontend.
2. Schema design
We're storing the object changes in minute-second-millisecond objects in a record per hour. The schema design is like described here. Sample:
o: object1,
dt: $date,
v: {0: {0:{0: {speed: 8, rate: 0.8}}}, 1: {0:{0: {speed: 9}}}, …}
We've put indexes on {dt: -1, o: 1} and {o:1}.
3. Retrieving data
We use a mapReduce to construct a new date based on the minute-second-millisecond objects and to put the object back in v:
o: object1,
dt: $date,
v: {speed: 8, rate:0.8}
An average document is about 525 kB before the mapReduce function and has had ~29000 updates. After mapReduce of such a document, the result is about 746 kB.
3.1 Retrieving data from through mongo shell with mapReduce
We're using the following map function:
function mapF(){
for (var i = 0; i < 3600; i++){
var imin = Math.floor(i / 60);
var isec = (i % 60);
var min = ''+imin;
var sec = ''+isec;
if (this.v.hasOwnProperty(min) && this.v[min].hasOwnProperty(sec)) {
for (var ms in this.v[min][sec]) {
if (imin !== 0 && isec !== 0 && ms !== '0' && this.v[min][sec].hasOwnProperty(ms)) {// is our keyframe
var currentV = this.v[min][sec][ms];
//newT is new date computed by the min, sec, ms above
if (toDate > newT && newT > fromDate) {
if (fields && fields.length > 0) {
for (var p = 0, length = fields.length; p < length; p++){
//check if field is present and put it in newV
}
if (newV) {
emit(this.o, {vs: [{o: this.o, dt: newT, v: newV}]});
}
} else {
emit(this.o, {vs: [{o: this.o, dt: newT, v: currentV}]});
}
}
}
}
}
}
};
The reduce function basically just passes the data on. The call to mapReduce:
db.collection.mapReduce( mapF,reduceF,
{out: {inline: 1},
query: {o: {$in: objectNames]}, dt: {$gte: keyframeFromDate, $lt: keyframeToDate}},
sort: {dt: 1},
scope: {toDate: toDateWithinKeyframe, fromDate: fromDateWithinKeyframe, fields: []},
jsMode: true});
Retrieving 2 objects over 1 hour: 2,4 seconds.
Retrieving 2 objects over 5 hour: 8,3 seconds.
For this method we would have to write js and bat files runtime and read the json data back in. We have not measured times fort his yet, because frankly, we don’t like the idea very much.
Another problem with this method is that we get out of memory errors of the v8 javascript engine when we try to retrieve data for longer periods and/or more objects. Using a pc with more RAM works to some extend in preventing out of memory, but it doesn't make retrieving data faster.
This article mentions splitVector, which we might use to devide the workload. But we're not sure on how to use the keyPattern and maxChunkSizeBytes options. Can we use a keyPattern for both o and dt?
We might use multiple collections, but our dataset isn’t that big to start with at the moment, so we’re worried about how much collections we’d need.
3.2 Retrieving data through mongoWire with mapReduce
For retrieving data through mongoWire with mapReduce, we use the same mapReduce functions as above. We use the following Delphi code to start te query:
FMongoWire.Get('$cmd',BSON([
'mapreduce', ‘collection’,
'map', bsonJavaScriptCodePrefix + FMapVCRFunction.Text,
'reduce', bsonJavaScriptCodePrefix + FReduceVCRFunction.Text,
'out', BSON(['inline', 1]),
'query', mapquery,
'sort', BSON(['dt', -1]),
'scope', scope
]));
Retrieving data with this method is about 3-4 times (!) slower. And then the data has to be translated from BSON (IBSONDocument to JSON (SuperObject), which is a major time consuming part in this method. For retrieving raw data we use TMongoWireQuery which translates the BSONdocument in parts, while this mapReduce function uses TMongoWire directly and tries to translate the complete result. This might explain why this takes so long, while normally it's quite fast. If we can reduce the time it takes for the mapReduce to return results, this might be a next step for us to focus on.
3.3 Retrieving raw data and parsing in Delphi
Retrieving raw data to Delphi takes a bit longer then the previous method, but probably because of the use of TMongoWireQuery, the translation from BSON to JSON is much quicker.
4. Questions
Can we do further optimizations on our schema design?
How can we make the mapReduce function faster?
How can we prevent the out of
memory errors of the v8 engine? Can someone give more information on
the splitVector function?
How can we best use of mapReduce from Delphi? Can we use
MongoWireQuery in stead of MongoWire?
5. Specs
MongoDB 3.0.3
MongoWire from 2015 (recently updated)
Delphi 2010 (got XE5 as well)
4GB RAM (tried on 8GB RAM as well, less out of memory, but reading times are about the same)
Phew what a question! First up: I'm not an expert at MongoDB. I wrote TMongoWire as a way to get to know MongoDB a little. Also I really (really) dislike when wrappers have a plethora of overloads to do the same thing but for all kinds of specific types. A long time ago programmers didn't have generics, but we did have Variant. So I built a MongoDB wrapper (and IBSONDocument) based around variants. That said, I apparently made something people like to use, and by keeping it simple performs quite well. (I haven't been putting much time in it lately, but on the top of the list is catering for the new authentication schemes since version 3.)
Now, about your specific setup. You say you use mapreduce to get from 500KB to 700KB? I think there's a hint there you're using the wrong tool for the job. I'm not sure what the default mongo shell does differently than when you do the same over TMongoWire.Get, but if I assume mapReduce assembles the response first before sending it over the wire, that's where the performance gets lost.
So here's my advice: you're right with thinking about using TMongoWireQuery. It offers a way to process data faster as the server will be streaming it in, but there's more.
I strongly suggest to use an array to store the list of seconds. Even if not all seconds have data, store null on the seconds without data so each minute array has 60 items. This is why:
One nicety that turned up in designing TMongoWireQuery, is the assumption you'll be processing a single (BSON) document at a time, and that the contents of the documents will be roughly similar, at least in the value names. So by using the same IBSONDocument instance when enumerating the response, you actually save a lot of time by not having to de-allocate and re-allocate all those variants.
That goes for simple documents, but would actually be nice to have on arrays as well. That's why I created IBSONDocumentEnumerator. You need to pre-load an IBSONDocument instance with an IBSONDocumentEnumerator in the place where you're expecting the array of documents, and you need to process the array in roughly the same way as with TMongoWireQuery: enumerate it using the same IBSONDocument instance, so when subsequent documents have the same keys, time is saved not having to re-allocate them.
In your case though, you would still need to pull the data of an entire hour through the wire just to select the seconds you need. As I said before, I'm not a MongoDB expert, but I suspect there could be a better way to store data like this. Either with a separate document per second (I guess this would let the indexes do more of the work, and MongoDB can take that insert-rate), or with a specific query construction so that MongoDB knows to shorten the seconds array into just that data you're requesting (is that what $splice does?)
Here's an example of how to use IBSONDocumentEnumerator on documents like {name:"fruit",items:[{name:"apple"},{name:"pear"}]}
q:=TMongoWireQuery.Create(db);
try
q.Query('test',BSON([]));
e:=BSONEnum;
d:=BSON(['items',e]);
d1:=BSON;
while q.Next(d) do
begin
i:=0;
while e.Next(d1) do
begin
Memo1.Lines.Add(d['name']+'#'+IntToStr(i)+d1['name']);
inc(i);
end;
end;
finally
q.Free;
end;
I'm trying to make an ajax autocomplete search box that of course uses SQL, min 3 characters, and have a SQL view of relevant fields already set up and indexed in the db. The CPU still spikes when searching, which I expected as it's running a query for every character. I want to use Zend shm cache to speed up results and reduce CPU usage. The results are stored in an array which is to be cached like this:
while($row = db2_fetch_row($stmt)) {
$fSearch[trim($row[0]).trim($row[1])] = array(/*array built here*/);
}
if (zend_shm_cache_store('fSearch', $fSearch, 10 * 60) === false) {
error_log('Failed to store search cache!');
}
Of course there's actual data inside the array instead of comments, I just shortened the code for simplicity. Rows 0&1 form the PK, and this has tested to be working properly. It's the zend_shm_cache_store that fails because the error log gets flooded with 'Failed to store search cache!'. I read that zend_shm_cache_store can store any array that can be serialized - how can I tell if my data is serialized or can be serialized? Are there any other potential causes? I did make a test page that only stored a string and that was successful, so I know caching is on.
Solved: cache size was too small for array - increased cache size and it worked fine. Sorry for the trouble.