You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@spark.apache.org by "Harry Weppner (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2017/01/03 23:55:58 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (SPARK-19032) Non-deterministic results using
aggregation first across multiple workers
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-19032?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15796603#comment-15796603 ]
Harry Weppner commented on SPARK-19032:
---------------------------------------
[~srowen] thanks for clarifying the intended semantics. I'm having a hard time thinking about valid scenarios where a `first` or `last` aggregation function would yield any deterministic results (in general)!?
> Non-deterministic results using aggregation first across multiple workers
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-19032
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-19032
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Optimizer
> Affects Versions: 1.6.1
> Environment: Standalone Spark 1.6.1 cluster on EC2 with 2 worker nodes, one executor each.
> Reporter: Harry Weppner
>
> We've come across a situation results aggregated using {{first}} on a sorted df are non-deterministic. Given the explanation for the plan there appears to be a plausible explanation but creates more question on the usefulness of these aggregation functions in a spark cluster.
> Here's a minimal example to reproduce:
> {code}
> val df = sc.parallelize(Seq(("a","prod1",0.6),("a","prod2",0.4),("a","prod2",0.4),("a","prod2",0.4),("a","prod2",0.4))).toDF("account","product","probability")
> var p = df.sort($"probability".desc).groupBy($"account").agg(first($"product"),first($"probability")).show();
> +-------+----------------+--------------------+
> |account|first(product)()|first(probability)()|
> +-------+----------------+--------------------+
> | a| prod1| 0.6|
> +-------+----------------+--------------------+
> p: Unit = ()
> // Repeat and notice that result will occasionally be different
> +-------+----------------+--------------------+
> |account|first(product)()|first(probability)()|
> +-------+----------------+--------------------+
> | a| prod2| 0.4|
> +-------+----------------+--------------------+
> p: Unit = ()
> scala> df.sort($"probability".desc).groupBy($"account").agg(first($"product"),first($"probability")).explain(true);
> == Parsed Logical Plan ==
> 'Aggregate ['account], [unresolvedalias('account),(first('product)(),mode=Complete,isDistinct=false) AS first(product)()#523,(first('probability)(),mode=Complete,isDistinct=false) AS first(probability)()#524]
> +- Sort [probability#5 DESC], true
> +- Project [_1#0 AS account#3,_2#1 AS product#4,_3#2 AS probability#5]
> +- LogicalRDD [_1#0,_2#1,_3#2], MapPartitionsRDD[1] at rddToDataFrameHolder at <console>:27
> == Analyzed Logical Plan ==
> account: string, first(product)(): string, first(probability)(): double
> Aggregate [account#3], [account#3,(first(product#4)(),mode=Complete,isDistinct=false) AS first(product)()#523,(first(probability#5)(),mode=Complete,isDistinct=false) AS first(probability)()#524]
> +- Sort [probability#5 DESC], true
> +- Project [_1#0 AS account#3,_2#1 AS product#4,_3#2 AS probability#5]
> +- LogicalRDD [_1#0,_2#1,_3#2], MapPartitionsRDD[1] at rddToDataFrameHolder at <console>:27
> == Optimized Logical Plan ==
> Aggregate [account#3], [account#3,(first(product#4)(),mode=Complete,isDistinct=false) AS first(product)()#523,(first(probability#5)(),mode=Complete,isDistinct=false) AS first(probability)()#524]
> +- Sort [probability#5 DESC], true
> +- Project [_1#0 AS account#3,_2#1 AS product#4,_3#2 AS probability#5]
> +- LogicalRDD [_1#0,_2#1,_3#2], MapPartitionsRDD[1] at rddToDataFrameHolder at <console>:27
> == Physical Plan ==
> SortBasedAggregate(key=[account#3], functions=[(first(product#4)(),mode=Final,isDistinct=false),(first(probability#5)(),mode=Final,isDistinct=false)], output=[account#3,first(product)()#523,first(probability)()#524])
> +- ConvertToSafe
> +- Sort [account#3 ASC], false, 0
> +- TungstenExchange hashpartitioning(account#3,200), None
> +- ConvertToUnsafe
> +- SortBasedAggregate(key=[account#3], functions=[(first(product#4)(),mode=Partial,isDistinct=false),(first(probability#5)(),mode=Partial,isDistinct=false)], output=[account#3,first#532,valueSet#533,first#534,valueSet#535])
> +- ConvertToSafe
> +- Sort [account#3 ASC], false, 0
> +- Sort [probability#5 DESC], true, 0
> +- ConvertToUnsafe
> +- Exchange rangepartitioning(probability#5 DESC,200), None
> +- ConvertToSafe
> +- Project [_1#0 AS account#3,_2#1 AS product#4,_3#2 AS probability#5]
> +- Scan ExistingRDD[_1#0,_2#1,_3#2]
> {code}
> My working hypothesis is that after {{TungstenExchange hashpartitioning}} the _global_ sort order on {{probability}} is lost leading to non-deterministic results.
> If this hypothesis is valid, then how useful are aggregation functions such as {{first}}, {{last}} and possibly others in Spark?
> It appears that the use of window functions could address the ambiguity by making the partitions explicit but I'd be interested in your assessment. Thanks!
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@spark.apache.org