Thanks for your answer. But the problem is that I only want to sort the 32 
partitions, individually,
not the complete input. So yes, the output has to consist of 32 partitions, 
each sorted.

Ceriel Jacobs


On 12/04/2013 06:30 PM, Ashish Rangole wrote:
I am not sure if 32 partitions is a hard limit that you have.

Unless you have a strong reason to use only 32 partitions, please try providing 
the second optional
argument (numPartitions) to reduceByKey and sortByKey methods which will 
paralellize these Reduce operations.
A number 3x the number of total cores on the cluster would be a good value to 
try for numPartitions.

http://spark.incubator.apache.org/docs/latest/tuning.html#memory-usage-of-reduce-tasks

In case you have to have 32 partitions in the final output, you can use 
coalesce(32) method on your
RDD at the time of final output.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Ceriel Jacobs <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Hi,

    I am a novice to SPARK, and need some help with the following problem:
    I have a
             JavaRDD<String> strings;
    which is potentially large, hundreds of GBs, and I need to split them
    into 32 partitions, by means of hashcode()%32, and then sort these 
partitions,
    and also remove duplicates. I am having trouble finding an efficient way of
    expressing this in SPARK. I think I need an RDD to be able to sort, so in
    this case, I need 32 of them. So I first created an RDD with pairs 
<partitionNo, string>,
    like this:

             JavaPairRDD<Integer, String> hashStrings = strings
                     .keyBy(new Function<String, Integer>() {
                         @Override
                         public Integer call(String s) {
                             return new Integer(s.hashCode() % 32);
                         }
                     });

    And then I launch 32 threads that do the following (each thread has its own 
partition):

                 // Filter for my own partition
                 JavaPairRDD<Integer, String> filtered = hashStrings
                         .filter(new Function<Tuple2<Integer, String>, 
Boolean>() {
                             @Override
                             public Boolean call(Tuple2<Integer, String> tpl) {
                                 return tpl._1 == partition;
                             }
                         });
                 JavaRDD<String> values = filtered.values();

                 // Pair with a boolean, so that we can use sortByKey().
                 JavaPairRDD<String, Boolean> values1 =
                         values.map(new PairFunction<String, String, Boolean>() 
{
                             @Override
                             public Tuple2<String, Boolean> call(String s) {
                                 return new Tuple2<String, Boolean>(s, true);
                             }
                         });

                 // Reduce by key to remove duplicates.
                 JavaPairRDD<String, Boolean> reduced =
                         values1.reduceByKey(
                                 new Function2<Boolean, Boolean, Boolean>() {
                                     @Override
                                     public Boolean call(Boolean i1,
                                             Boolean i2) {
                                         // return i1 + i2;
                                         return true;
                                     }
                                 });

                 // Sort and extract keys.
                 JavaRDD<String> result = reduced.sortByKey().keys();

    This works for not so large input, but for larger I get all kinds of 
out-of-memory
    exceptions. I'm running on 8 nodes, each with 8 cores, and am using 
SPARK_MEM=16G.
    I also tried  StorageLevel.MEMORY_AND_DISK() for all the RDDs, but that 
just seems to
    make things much slower, and still gives out-of-memory exceptions.

    Now I'm pretty sure that the way I obtain the partitions is really 
inefficient, and I also
    have my doubts about starting the RDDs in separate threads. So, what would 
be the best way
    to deal with this?

    Thanks in advance for any hints that you can give me.

    Ceriel Jacobs



Reply via email to