Sure, it is possible to change the size of row group and others. Right now we are setting parquet-block-size to be 256M, page-size to be 1M, and giving ~3G for Xmx.
Though my question is not directly about the sizes, as conceptually we can always solve the problem by giving larger memory. I am trying to figure out the right WAY to define the schema, because we have a limitation to the memory (<5G) for JVM and too small parquet block size can compromise the columnar storage benefits. Also it is possible for us to add more 'MARKET's in future, making the number of table columns even larger. Therefore we need to get some concrete ideas of the memory consumption by Parquet itself (e.g., Parquet requires an internal structure to keep the table schema, I suppose). Any suggestions? Thanks, Yan On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Reuben Kuhnert <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi again Yan, > > Sorry about the late reply, the *ParquetOutputFormat* class has a number of > setters: > > public static void setBlockSize(Job job, int blockSize) { > getConfiguration(job).setInt(BLOCK_SIZE, blockSize); > } > > public static void setPageSize(Job job, int pageSize) { > getConfiguration(job).setInt(PAGE_SIZE, pageSize); > } > > public static void setDictionaryPageSize(Job job, int pageSize) { > getConfiguration(job).setInt(DICTIONARY_PAGE_SIZE, pageSize); > } > > public static void setCompression(Job job, CompressionCodecName > compression) { > getConfiguration(job).set(COMPRESSION, compression.name()); > } > > public static void setEnableDictionary(Job job, boolean enableDictionary) > { > getConfiguration(job).setBoolean(ENABLE_DICTIONARY, enableDictionary); > } > > these allow you to set the 'row group' (i.e. block size) and page size > which determine how much data is written out per block (and transitively > how much data is retained in memory before a flush). Try setting these to > say '128 M' for a block and '1 MB' for a page (to test). If this doesn't > work can you let us know what the current sizes are that you're using > (using the associated getters also on ParquetOutputFormat)? > > Thanks > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Yan Qi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Reuben, > > > > Thanks for your quick reply! :) > > > > The table has nested columns with the following Avro schema: > > > > { > > "namespace": "profile.avro.parquet.model", > > "type": "record", > > "name": "Profile", > > "fields": [ > > {"name": "id", "type": "int"}, > > {"name": "M1", "type": ["Market", "null"]}, > > {"name": "M2", "type": ["Market", "null"]}, > > ....... > > ....... > > {"name": "M100", "type": ["Market", "null"]} > > ] > > } > > > > { > > "namespace": "profile.avro.parquet.model", > > "type": "record", > > "name": "Market", > > "fields": [ > > {"name": "item1", "type": [{ "type": "array", "items": "Client"}, > "null"]}, > > {"name": "item2", "type": [{ "type": "array", "items": "Client"}, > "null"]}, > > {"name": "item3", "type": [{ "type": "array", "items": "Client"}, > "null"]}, > > {"name": "item4", "type": [{ "type": "array", "items": "Client"}, > "null"]}, > > {"name": "item5", "type": [{ "type": "array", "items": "Client"}, > "null"]} > > ] > > } > > > > { > > "namespace": "profile.avro.parquet.model", > > "type": "record", > > "name": "Client", > > "fields": [ > > {"name": "attribute1", "type": "int"}, > > {"name": "attribute2", "type": "int"}, > > {"name": "attribute3", "type": "int"}, > > ...... > > ...... > > {"name": "attribute50", "type": "int"} > > ] > > } > > > > For each record in the table, it may not have every attribute valid. For > > example, a record of Profile may only have M1, M20 and M89 with values, > but > > other empty. When we tried to write such a record in the parquet format, > it > > requires a lot of memory to get started. > > > > We also tried another way to define the table, like: > > > > { > > "namespace": "profile.avro.parquet.model", > > "type": "record", > > "name": "Profile", > > "fields": [ > > {"name": "id", "type": "int"}, > > {"name": "markets", "type": [{ "type": "array", "items": > > "Market"}, "null"]}, > > ] > > } > > > > Interestingly it can handle the same data with much smaller memory. But > we > > won't be able to get the columnar storage benefits for those Market > members > > because we have to load data from all markets no matter what market is > > concerned. > > > > Hope my information could give you a rough idea of the application. So my > > question is if increasing the memory size is the only way in the former > > case, or if there is a better way to define the table. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Yan > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Reuben Kuhnert < > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Yan, > > > > > > So the primary concern here would be the 'row group' size that you're > > using > > > for your table. The row group is basically what determines how much > > > information is stored in memory before being flushed to disk (this > > becomes > > > an even greater issue if you have multiple parquet files open > > > simultaneously as well - obviously). If you could, can you share some > of > > > the stats about your file with us? See if we can't get you moving > again. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Reuben > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Yan Qi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We are trying to create a large table in Parquet. The table has up to > > > > thousands of columns, but its record may not be large because many of > > the > > > > columns are empty. We are using Avro-Parquet for data > > > > serialization/de-serialization. However, we got out-of-memory issue > > when > > > > writing the data in the Parquet format. > > > > > > > > Our understanding is that Parquet may keep an internal structure for > > the > > > > table schema, which may take more memory if the table becomes larger. > > If > > > > that's the case, our question is: > > > > > > > > Is there a limit to the table size that Parquet can support? If yes, > > how > > > > could we determine the limit? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Yan > > > > > > > > > >
