You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@spark.apache.org by Сергей Романов <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID> on 2016/09/03 12:40:28 UTC
Re[5]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field to aggregation.
Hi,
I had narrowed down my problem to a very simple case. I'm sending 27kb parquet in attachment. (file:///data/dump/test2 in example)
Please, can you take a look at it? Why there is performance drop after 57 sum columns?
Welcome to
____ __
/ __/__ ___ _____/ /__
_\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
/__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
/_/
Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>> import timeit
>>> for x in range(70): print x, timeit.timeit(spark.read.parquet('file:///data/dump/test2').groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
...
SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further details.
0 1.05591607094
1 0.200426101685
2 0.203800916672
3 0.176458120346
4 0.184863805771
5 0.232321023941
6 0.216032981873
7 0.201778173447
8 0.292424917221
9 0.228524923325
10 0.190534114838
11 0.197028160095
12 0.270443916321
13 0.429781913757
14 0.270851135254
15 0.776989936829
16 0.233337879181
17 0.227638959885
18 0.212944030762
19 0.2144780159
20 0.22200012207
21 0.262261152267
22 0.254227876663
23 0.275084018707
24 0.292124032974
25 0.280488014221
16/09/03 15:31:28 WARN Utils: Truncated the string representation of a plan since it was too large. This behavior can be adjusted by setting 'spark.debug.maxToStringFields' in SparkEnv.conf.
26 0.290093898773
27 0.238478899002
28 0.246420860291
29 0.241401195526
30 0.255286931992
31 0.42702794075
32 0.327946186066
33 0.434395074844
34 0.314198970795
35 0.34576010704
36 0.278323888779
37 0.289474964142
38 0.290827989578
39 0.376291036606
40 0.347742080688
41 0.363158941269
42 0.318687915802
43 0.376327991486
44 0.374994039536
45 0.362971067429
46 0.425967931747
47 0.370860099792
48 0.443903923035
49 0.374128103256
50 0.378985881805
51 0.476850986481
52 0.451028823853
53 0.432540893555
54 0.514838933945
55 0.53990483284
56 0.449142932892
57 0.465240001678 // 5x slower after 57 columns
58 2.40412116051
59 2.41632795334
60 2.41812801361
61 2.55726218224
62 2.55484509468
63 2.56128406525
64 2.54642391205
65 2.56381797791
66 2.56871509552
67 2.66187620163
68 2.63496208191
69 2.81545996666
Sergei Romanov
Re[7]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field to aggregation.
Posted by Сергей Романов <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>.
And even more simple case:
>>> df = sc.parallelize([1] for x in xrange(760857)).toDF()
>>> for x in range(50, 70): print x, timeit.timeit(df.groupBy().sum(*(['_1'] * x)).collect, number=1)
50 1.91226291656
51 1.50933384895
52 1.582903862
53 1.90537405014
54 1.84442877769
55 1.91788887978
56 1.50977802277
57 1.5907189846
// after 57 rows it's 2x slower
58 3.22199988365
59 2.96345090866
60 2.8297970295
61 2.87895679474
62 2.92077898979
63 2.95195293427
64 4.10550689697
65 4.14798402786
66 3.13437199593
67 3.11248207092
68 3.18963003159
69 3.18774986267
>Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 15:50 +03:00 от Сергей Романов <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>:
>
>Same problem happens with CSV data file, so it's not parquet-related either.
>
>Welcome to
> ____ __
> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
> /_/
>
>Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
>SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>> import timeit
>>>> from pyspark.sql.types import *
>>>> schema = StructType([StructField('dd_convs', FloatType(), True)])
>>>> for x in range(50, 70): print x, timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv', schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
>50 0.372850894928
>51 0.376906871796
>52 0.381325960159
>53 0.385444164276
>54 0.386877775192
>55 0.388918161392
>56 0.397624969482
>57 0.391713142395
>58 2.62714004517
>59 2.68421196938
>60 2.74627685547
>61 2.81081581116
>62 3.43532109261
>63 3.07742786407
>64 3.03904604912
>65 3.01616096497
>66 3.06293702126
>67 3.09386610985
>68 3.27610206604
>69 3.2041969299 Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 15:40 +03:00 от Сергей Романов < romanovsa@inbox.ru.INVALID >:
>>
>>Hi,
>>I had narrowed down my problem to a very simple case. I'm sending 27kb parquet in attachment. (file:///data/dump/test2 in example)
>>Please, can you take a look at it? Why there is performance drop after 57 sum columns?
>>Welcome to
>> ____ __
>> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
>> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
>> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
>> /_/
>>
>>Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
>>SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>>> import timeit
>>>>> for x in range(70): print x, timeit.timeit(spark.read.parquet('file:///data/dump/test2').groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
>>...
>>SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
>>SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
>>SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further details.
>>0 1.05591607094
>>1 0.200426101685
>>2 0.203800916672
>>3 0.176458120346
>>4 0.184863805771
>>5 0.232321023941
>>6 0.216032981873
>>7 0.201778173447
>>8 0.292424917221
>>9 0.228524923325
>>10 0.190534114838
>>11 0.197028160095
>>12 0.270443916321
>>13 0.429781913757
>>14 0.270851135254
>>15 0.776989936829
>>16 0.233337879181
>>17 0.227638959885
>>18 0.212944030762
>>19 0.2144780159
>>20 0.22200012207
>>21 0.262261152267
>>22 0.254227876663
>>23 0.275084018707
>>24 0.292124032974
>>25 0.280488014221
>>16/09/03 15:31:28 WARN Utils: Truncated the string representation of a plan since it was too large. This behavior can be adjusted by setting 'spark.debug.maxToStringFields' in SparkEnv.conf.
>>26 0.290093898773
>>27 0.238478899002
>>28 0.246420860291
>>29 0.241401195526
>>30 0.255286931992
>>31 0.42702794075
>>32 0.327946186066
>>33 0.434395074844
>>34 0.314198970795
>>35 0.34576010704
>>36 0.278323888779
>>37 0.289474964142
>>38 0.290827989578
>>39 0.376291036606
>>40 0.347742080688
>>41 0.363158941269
>>42 0.318687915802
>>43 0.376327991486
>>44 0.374994039536
>>45 0.362971067429
>>46 0.425967931747
>>47 0.370860099792
>>48 0.443903923035
>>49 0.374128103256
>>50 0.378985881805
>>51 0.476850986481
>>52 0.451028823853
>>53 0.432540893555
>>54 0.514838933945
>>55 0.53990483284
>>56 0.449142932892
>>57 0.465240001678 // 5x slower after 57 columns
>>58 2.40412116051
>>59 2.41632795334
>>60 2.41812801361
>>61 2.55726218224
>>62 2.55484509468
>>63 2.56128406525
>>64 2.54642391205
>>65 2.56381797791
>>66 2.56871509552
>>67 2.66187620163
>>68 2.63496208191
>>69 2.81545996666
>>
>>Sergei Romanov
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>Sergei Romanov
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
Re[10]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field to aggregation.
Posted by Сергей Романов <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>.
Thank you, Yong, it looks great.
I had added following lines to spark-defaults.conf and now my original SQL query runs much faster.
spark.executor.extraJavaOptions -XX:-DontCompileHugeMethods
spark.driver.extraJavaOptions -XX:-DontCompileHugeMethods
Can you recommend these configuration settings for production mode? Will it have any side-effects? Will it supersede SPARK-17115?
SQL:
SELECT `publisher_id` AS `publisher_id`, SUM(`conversions`) AS `conversions`, SUM(`dmp_rapleaf_margin`) AS `dmp_rapleaf_margin`, SUM(`pvc`) AS `pvc`, SUM(`dmp_nielsen_payout`) AS `dmp_nielsen_payout`, SUM(`fraud_clicks`) AS `fraud_clicks`, SUM(`impressions`) AS `impressions`, SUM(`conv_prob`) AS `conv_prob`, SUM(`dmp_liveramp_payout`) AS `dmp_liveramp_payout`, SUM(`decisions`) AS `decisions`, SUM(`fraud_impressions`) AS `fraud_impressions`, SUM(`advertiser_spent`) AS `advertiser_spent`, SUM(`actual_ssp_fee`) AS `actual_ssp_fee`, SUM(`dmp_nielsen_margin`) AS `dmp_nielsen_margin`, SUM(`first_impressions`) AS `first_impressions`, SUM(`clicks`) AS `clicks`, SUM(`second_price`) AS `second_price`, SUM(`click_prob`) AS `click_prob`, SUM(`clicks_static`) AS `clicks_static`, SUM(`expected_payout`) AS `expected_payout`, SUM(`bid_price`) AS `bid_price`, SUM(`noads`) AS `noads`, SUM(`e`) AS `e`, SUM(`e`) as `e2`, SUM(`publisher_revenue`) AS `publisher_revenue`, SUM(`dmp_liveramp_margin`) AS `dmp_liveramp_margin`, SUM(`actual_pgm_fee`) AS `actual_pgm_fee`, SUM(`dmp_rapleaf_payout`) AS `dmp_rapleaf_payout`, SUM(`dd_convs`) AS `dd_convs`, SUM(`actual_dsp_fee`) AS `actual_dsp_fee` FROM `slicer`.`573_slicer_rnd_13` WHERE dt = '2016-07-28' GROUP BY `publisher_id` LIMIT 30;
Original:
30 rows selected (10.047 seconds)
30 rows selected (10.612 seconds)
30 rows selected (9.935 seconds)
With -XX:-DontCompileHugeMethods:
30 rows selected (1.086 seconds)
30 rows selected (1.051 seconds)
30 rows selected (1.073 seconds)
>Среда, 7 сентября 2016, 0:35 +03:00 от Yong Zhang <ja...@hotmail.com>:
>
>This is an interesting point.
>
>I tested with originally data with Spark 2.0 release, I can get the same statistic output in the originally email like following:
>
>50 1.77695393562
>51 0.695149898529
>52 0.638142108917
>53 0.647341966629
>54 0.663456916809
>55 0.629166126251
>56 0.644149065018
>57 0.661190986633
>58 2.6616499424
>59 2.6137509346
>60 2.71165704727
>61 2.63473916054
>
>Then I tested with your suggestion:
>
>spark/bin/pyspark --driver-java-options '-XX:-DontCompileHugeMethods'
>
>Run the same test code, and here is the output:
>
>50 1.77180695534
>51 0.679394006729
>52 0.629493951797
>53 0.62108206749
>54 0.637018918991
>55 0.640591144562
>56 0.649922132492
>57 0.652480125427
>58 0.636356830597
>59 0.667215824127
>60 0.643863916397
>61 0.669810056686
>62 0.664624929428
>63 0.682888031006
>64 0.691393136978
>65 0.690823078156
>66 0.70525097847
>67 0.724694013596
>68 0.737638950348
>69 0.749594926834
>
>
>Yong
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Davies Liu < davies@databricks.com >
>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 2:27 PM
>To: Сергей Романов
>Cc: Gavin Yue; Mich Talebzadeh; user
>Subject: Re: Re[8]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field to aggregation.
>
>I think the slowness is caused by generated aggregate method has more
>than 8K bytecodes, than it's not JIT compiled, became much slower.
>
>Could you try to disable the DontCompileHugeMethods by:
>
>-XX:-DontCompileHugeMethods
>
>On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Сергей Романов
>< romanovsa@inbox.ru.invalid > wrote:
>> Hi, Gavin,
>>
>> Shuffling is exactly the same in both requests and is minimal. Both requests
>> produces one shuffle task. Running time is the only difference I can see in
>> metrics:
>>
>> timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv',
>> schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * 57) ).collect, number=1)
>> 0.713730096817
>> {
>> "id" : 368,
>> "name" : "duration total (min, med, max)",
>> "value" : "524"
>> }, {
>> "id" : 375,
>> "name" : "internal.metrics.executorRunTime",
>> "value" : "527"
>> }, {
>> "id" : 391,
>> "name" : "internal.metrics.shuffle.write.writeTime",
>> "value" : "244495"
>> }
>>
>> timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv',
>> schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * 58) ).collect, number=1)
>> 2.97951102257
>>
>> }, {
>> "id" : 469,
>> "name" : "duration total (min, med, max)",
>> "value" : "2654"
>> }, {
>> "id" : 476,
>> "name" : "internal.metrics.executorRunTime",
>> "value" : "2661"
>> }, {
>> "id" : 492,
>> "name" : "internal.metrics.shuffle.write.writeTime",
>> "value" : "371883"
>> }, {
>>
>> Full metrics in attachment.
>>
>> Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 19:53 +03:00 от Gavin Yue
>> < yue.yuanyuan@gmail.com >:
>>
>>
>> Any shuffling?
>>
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Сергей Романов < romanovsa@inbox.ru.INVALID >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Same problem happens with CSV data file, so it's not parquet-related either.
>>
>> Welcome to
>> ____ __
>> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
>> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
>> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
>> /_/
>>
>> Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
>> SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>>> import timeit
>>>>> from pyspark.sql.types import *
>>>>> schema = StructType([StructField('dd_convs', FloatType(), True)])
>>>>> for x in range(50, 70): print x,
>>>>> timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv',
>>>>> schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
>> 50 0.372850894928
>> 51 0.376906871796
>> 52 0.381325960159
>> 53 0.385444164276
>> 54 0.386877775192
>> 55 0.388918161392
>> 56 0.397624969482
>> 57 0.391713142395
>> 58 2.62714004517
>> 59 2.68421196938
>> 60 2.74627685547
>> 61 2.81081581116
>> 62 3.43532109261
>> 63 3.07742786407
>> 64 3.03904604912
>> 65 3.01616096497
>> 66 3.06293702126
>> 67 3.09386610985
>> 68 3.27610206604
>> 69 3.2041969299
>>
>> Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 15:40 +03:00 от Сергей Романов
>> < romanovsa@inbox.ru.INVALID >:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had narrowed down my problem to a very simple case. I'm sending 27kb
>> parquet in attachment. ( file:///data/dump/test2 in example)
>>
>> Please, can you take a look at it? Why there is performance drop after 57
>> sum columns?
>>
>> Welcome to
>> ____ __
>> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
>> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
>> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
>> /_/
>>
>> Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
>> SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>>> import timeit
>>>>> for x in range(70): print x,
>>>>> timeit.timeit(spark.read.parquet('file:///data/dump/test2').groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs']
>>>>> * x) ).collect, number=1)
>> ...
>> SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
>> SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
>> SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further
>> details.
>> 0 1.05591607094
>> 1 0.200426101685
>> 2 0.203800916672
>> 3 0.176458120346
>> 4 0.184863805771
>> 5 0.232321023941
>> 6 0.216032981873
>> 7 0.201778173447
>> 8 0.292424917221
>> 9 0.228524923325
>> 10 0.190534114838
>> 11 0.197028160095
>> 12 0.270443916321
>> 13 0.429781913757
>> 14 0.270851135254
>> 15 0.776989936829
>> 16 0.233337879181
>> 17 0.227638959885
>> 18 0.212944030762
>> 19 0.2144780159
>> 20 0.22200012207
>> 21 0.262261152267
>> 22 0.254227876663
>> 23 0.275084018707
>> 24 0.292124032974
>> 25 0.280488014221
>> 16/09/03 15:31:28 WARN Utils: Truncated the string representation of a plan
>> since it was too large. This behavior can be adjusted by setting
>> 'spark.debug.maxToStringFields' in SparkEnv.conf.
>> 26 0.290093898773
>> 27 0.238478899002
>> 28 0.246420860291
>> 29 0.241401195526
>> 30 0.255286931992
>> 31 0.42702794075
>> 32 0.327946186066
>> 33 0.434395074844
>> 34 0.314198970795
>> 35 0.34576010704
>> 36 0.278323888779
>> 37 0.289474964142
>> 38 0.290827989578
>> 39 0.376291036606
>> 40 0.347742080688
>> 41 0.363158941269
>> 42 0.318687915802
>> 43 0.376327991486
>> 44 0.374994039536
>> 45 0.362971067429
>> 46 0.425967931747
>> 47 0.370860099792
>> 48 0.443903923035
>> 49 0.374128103256
>> 50 0.378985881805
>> 51 0.476850986481
>> 52 0.451028823853
>> 53 0.432540893555
>> 54 0.514838933945
>> 55 0.53990483284
>> 56 0.449142932892
>> 57 0.465240001678 // 5x slower after 57 columns
>> 58 2.40412116051
>> 59 2.41632795334
>> 60 2.41812801361
>> 61 2.55726218224
>> 62 2.55484509468
>> 63 2.56128406525
>> 64 2.54642391205
>> 65 2.56381797791
>> 66 2.56871509552
>> 67 2.66187620163
>> 68 2.63496208191
>> 69 2.81545996666
>>
>>
>> Sergei Romanov
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>>
>> Sergei Romanov
>>
>> <bad.csv.tgz>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>
Re: Re[8]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field
to aggregation.
Posted by Yong Zhang <ja...@hotmail.com>.
This is an interesting point.
I tested with originally data with Spark 2.0 release, I can get the same statistic output in the originally email like following:
50 1.77695393562
51 0.695149898529
52 0.638142108917
53 0.647341966629
54 0.663456916809
55 0.629166126251
56 0.644149065018
57 0.661190986633
58 2.6616499424
59 2.6137509346
60 2.71165704727
61 2.63473916054
Then I tested with your suggestion:
spark/bin/pyspark --driver-java-options '-XX:-DontCompileHugeMethods'
Run the same test code, and here is the output:
50 1.77180695534
51 0.679394006729
52 0.629493951797
53 0.62108206749
54 0.637018918991
55 0.640591144562
56 0.649922132492
57 0.652480125427
58 0.636356830597
59 0.667215824127
60 0.643863916397
61 0.669810056686
62 0.664624929428
63 0.682888031006
64 0.691393136978
65 0.690823078156
66 0.70525097847
67 0.724694013596
68 0.737638950348
69 0.749594926834
Yong
________________________________
From: Davies Liu <da...@databricks.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 2:27 PM
To: Сергей Романов
Cc: Gavin Yue; Mich Talebzadeh; user
Subject: Re: Re[8]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field to aggregation.
I think the slowness is caused by generated aggregate method has more
than 8K bytecodes, than it's not JIT compiled, became much slower.
Could you try to disable the DontCompileHugeMethods by:
-XX:-DontCompileHugeMethods
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Сергей Романов
<ro...@inbox.ru.invalid> wrote:
> Hi, Gavin,
>
> Shuffling is exactly the same in both requests and is minimal. Both requests
> produces one shuffle task. Running time is the only difference I can see in
> metrics:
>
> timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv',
> schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * 57) ).collect, number=1)
> 0.713730096817
> {
> "id" : 368,
> "name" : "duration total (min, med, max)",
> "value" : "524"
> }, {
> "id" : 375,
> "name" : "internal.metrics.executorRunTime",
> "value" : "527"
> }, {
> "id" : 391,
> "name" : "internal.metrics.shuffle.write.writeTime",
> "value" : "244495"
> }
>
> timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv',
> schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * 58) ).collect, number=1)
> 2.97951102257
>
> }, {
> "id" : 469,
> "name" : "duration total (min, med, max)",
> "value" : "2654"
> }, {
> "id" : 476,
> "name" : "internal.metrics.executorRunTime",
> "value" : "2661"
> }, {
> "id" : 492,
> "name" : "internal.metrics.shuffle.write.writeTime",
> "value" : "371883"
> }, {
>
> Full metrics in attachment.
>
> Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 19:53 +03:00 от Gavin Yue
> <yu...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> Any shuffling?
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Сергей Романов <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> Same problem happens with CSV data file, so it's not parquet-related either.
>
> Welcome to
> ____ __
> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
> /_/
>
> Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
> SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>> import timeit
>>>> from pyspark.sql.types import *
>>>> schema = StructType([StructField('dd_convs', FloatType(), True)])
>>>> for x in range(50, 70): print x,
>>>> timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv',
>>>> schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
> 50 0.372850894928
> 51 0.376906871796
> 52 0.381325960159
> 53 0.385444164276
> 54 0.386877775192
> 55 0.388918161392
> 56 0.397624969482
> 57 0.391713142395
> 58 2.62714004517
> 59 2.68421196938
> 60 2.74627685547
> 61 2.81081581116
> 62 3.43532109261
> 63 3.07742786407
> 64 3.03904604912
> 65 3.01616096497
> 66 3.06293702126
> 67 3.09386610985
> 68 3.27610206604
> 69 3.2041969299
>
> Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 15:40 +03:00 от Сергей Романов
> <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>:
>
> Hi,
>
> I had narrowed down my problem to a very simple case. I'm sending 27kb
> parquet in attachment. (file:///data/dump/test2 in example)
>
> Please, can you take a look at it? Why there is performance drop after 57
> sum columns?
>
> Welcome to
> ____ __
> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
> /_/
>
> Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
> SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>> import timeit
>>>> for x in range(70): print x,
>>>> timeit.timeit(spark.read.parquet('file:///data/dump/test2').groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs']
>>>> * x) ).collect, number=1)
> ...
> SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
> SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
> SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further
> details.
> 0 1.05591607094
> 1 0.200426101685
> 2 0.203800916672
> 3 0.176458120346
> 4 0.184863805771
> 5 0.232321023941
> 6 0.216032981873
> 7 0.201778173447
> 8 0.292424917221
> 9 0.228524923325
> 10 0.190534114838
> 11 0.197028160095
> 12 0.270443916321
> 13 0.429781913757
> 14 0.270851135254
> 15 0.776989936829
> 16 0.233337879181
> 17 0.227638959885
> 18 0.212944030762
> 19 0.2144780159
> 20 0.22200012207
> 21 0.262261152267
> 22 0.254227876663
> 23 0.275084018707
> 24 0.292124032974
> 25 0.280488014221
> 16/09/03 15:31:28 WARN Utils: Truncated the string representation of a plan
> since it was too large. This behavior can be adjusted by setting
> 'spark.debug.maxToStringFields' in SparkEnv.conf.
> 26 0.290093898773
> 27 0.238478899002
> 28 0.246420860291
> 29 0.241401195526
> 30 0.255286931992
> 31 0.42702794075
> 32 0.327946186066
> 33 0.434395074844
> 34 0.314198970795
> 35 0.34576010704
> 36 0.278323888779
> 37 0.289474964142
> 38 0.290827989578
> 39 0.376291036606
> 40 0.347742080688
> 41 0.363158941269
> 42 0.318687915802
> 43 0.376327991486
> 44 0.374994039536
> 45 0.362971067429
> 46 0.425967931747
> 47 0.370860099792
> 48 0.443903923035
> 49 0.374128103256
> 50 0.378985881805
> 51 0.476850986481
> 52 0.451028823853
> 53 0.432540893555
> 54 0.514838933945
> 55 0.53990483284
> 56 0.449142932892
> 57 0.465240001678 // 5x slower after 57 columns
> 58 2.40412116051
> 59 2.41632795334
> 60 2.41812801361
> 61 2.55726218224
> 62 2.55484509468
> 63 2.56128406525
> 64 2.54642391205
> 65 2.56381797791
> 66 2.56871509552
> 67 2.66187620163
> 68 2.63496208191
> 69 2.81545996666
>
>
> Sergei Romanov
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>
> Sergei Romanov
>
> <bad.csv.tgz>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
Re: Re[8]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field
to aggregation.
Posted by Davies Liu <da...@databricks.com>.
I think the slowness is caused by generated aggregate method has more
than 8K bytecodes, than it's not JIT compiled, became much slower.
Could you try to disable the DontCompileHugeMethods by:
-XX:-DontCompileHugeMethods
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Сергей Романов
<ro...@inbox.ru.invalid> wrote:
> Hi, Gavin,
>
> Shuffling is exactly the same in both requests and is minimal. Both requests
> produces one shuffle task. Running time is the only difference I can see in
> metrics:
>
> timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv',
> schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * 57) ).collect, number=1)
> 0.713730096817
> {
> "id" : 368,
> "name" : "duration total (min, med, max)",
> "value" : "524"
> }, {
> "id" : 375,
> "name" : "internal.metrics.executorRunTime",
> "value" : "527"
> }, {
> "id" : 391,
> "name" : "internal.metrics.shuffle.write.writeTime",
> "value" : "244495"
> }
>
> timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv',
> schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * 58) ).collect, number=1)
> 2.97951102257
>
> }, {
> "id" : 469,
> "name" : "duration total (min, med, max)",
> "value" : "2654"
> }, {
> "id" : 476,
> "name" : "internal.metrics.executorRunTime",
> "value" : "2661"
> }, {
> "id" : 492,
> "name" : "internal.metrics.shuffle.write.writeTime",
> "value" : "371883"
> }, {
>
> Full metrics in attachment.
>
> Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 19:53 +03:00 от Gavin Yue
> <yu...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> Any shuffling?
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Сергей Романов <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> Same problem happens with CSV data file, so it's not parquet-related either.
>
> Welcome to
> ____ __
> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
> /_/
>
> Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
> SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>> import timeit
>>>> from pyspark.sql.types import *
>>>> schema = StructType([StructField('dd_convs', FloatType(), True)])
>>>> for x in range(50, 70): print x,
>>>> timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv',
>>>> schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
> 50 0.372850894928
> 51 0.376906871796
> 52 0.381325960159
> 53 0.385444164276
> 54 0.386877775192
> 55 0.388918161392
> 56 0.397624969482
> 57 0.391713142395
> 58 2.62714004517
> 59 2.68421196938
> 60 2.74627685547
> 61 2.81081581116
> 62 3.43532109261
> 63 3.07742786407
> 64 3.03904604912
> 65 3.01616096497
> 66 3.06293702126
> 67 3.09386610985
> 68 3.27610206604
> 69 3.2041969299
>
> Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 15:40 +03:00 от Сергей Романов
> <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>:
>
> Hi,
>
> I had narrowed down my problem to a very simple case. I'm sending 27kb
> parquet in attachment. (file:///data/dump/test2 in example)
>
> Please, can you take a look at it? Why there is performance drop after 57
> sum columns?
>
> Welcome to
> ____ __
> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
> /_/
>
> Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
> SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>> import timeit
>>>> for x in range(70): print x,
>>>> timeit.timeit(spark.read.parquet('file:///data/dump/test2').groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs']
>>>> * x) ).collect, number=1)
> ...
> SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
> SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
> SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further
> details.
> 0 1.05591607094
> 1 0.200426101685
> 2 0.203800916672
> 3 0.176458120346
> 4 0.184863805771
> 5 0.232321023941
> 6 0.216032981873
> 7 0.201778173447
> 8 0.292424917221
> 9 0.228524923325
> 10 0.190534114838
> 11 0.197028160095
> 12 0.270443916321
> 13 0.429781913757
> 14 0.270851135254
> 15 0.776989936829
> 16 0.233337879181
> 17 0.227638959885
> 18 0.212944030762
> 19 0.2144780159
> 20 0.22200012207
> 21 0.262261152267
> 22 0.254227876663
> 23 0.275084018707
> 24 0.292124032974
> 25 0.280488014221
> 16/09/03 15:31:28 WARN Utils: Truncated the string representation of a plan
> since it was too large. This behavior can be adjusted by setting
> 'spark.debug.maxToStringFields' in SparkEnv.conf.
> 26 0.290093898773
> 27 0.238478899002
> 28 0.246420860291
> 29 0.241401195526
> 30 0.255286931992
> 31 0.42702794075
> 32 0.327946186066
> 33 0.434395074844
> 34 0.314198970795
> 35 0.34576010704
> 36 0.278323888779
> 37 0.289474964142
> 38 0.290827989578
> 39 0.376291036606
> 40 0.347742080688
> 41 0.363158941269
> 42 0.318687915802
> 43 0.376327991486
> 44 0.374994039536
> 45 0.362971067429
> 46 0.425967931747
> 47 0.370860099792
> 48 0.443903923035
> 49 0.374128103256
> 50 0.378985881805
> 51 0.476850986481
> 52 0.451028823853
> 53 0.432540893555
> 54 0.514838933945
> 55 0.53990483284
> 56 0.449142932892
> 57 0.465240001678 // 5x slower after 57 columns
> 58 2.40412116051
> 59 2.41632795334
> 60 2.41812801361
> 61 2.55726218224
> 62 2.55484509468
> 63 2.56128406525
> 64 2.54642391205
> 65 2.56381797791
> 66 2.56871509552
> 67 2.66187620163
> 68 2.63496208191
> 69 2.81545996666
>
>
> Sergei Romanov
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>
> Sergei Romanov
>
> <bad.csv.tgz>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
Re[8]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field to aggregation.
Posted by Сергей Романов <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>.
Hi, Gavin,
Shuffling is exactly the same in both requests and is minimal. Both requests produces one shuffle task. Running time is the only difference I can see in metrics:
timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv', schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * 57) ).collect, number=1)
0.713730096817
{
"id" : 368,
"name" : "duration total (min, med, max)",
"value" : "524"
}, {
"id" : 375,
"name" : "internal.metrics.executorRunTime",
"value" : "527"
}, {
"id" : 391,
"name" : "internal.metrics.shuffle.write.writeTime",
"value" : "244495"
}
timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv', schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * 58) ).collect, number=1)
2.97951102257
}, {
"id" : 469,
"name" : "duration total (min, med, max)",
"value" : "2654"
}, {
"id" : 476,
"name" : "internal.metrics.executorRunTime",
"value" : "2661"
}, {
"id" : 492,
"name" : "internal.metrics.shuffle.write.writeTime",
"value" : "371883"
}, {
Full metrics in attachment.
>Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 19:53 +03:00 от Gavin Yue <yu...@gmail.com>:
>
>Any shuffling?
>
>
>On Sep 3, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Сергей Романов < romanovsa@inbox.ru.INVALID > wrote:
>
>>Same problem happens with CSV data file, so it's not parquet-related either.
>>
>>Welcome to
>> ____ __
>> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
>> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
>> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
>> /_/
>>
>>Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
>>SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>>> import timeit
>>>>> from pyspark.sql.types import *
>>>>> schema = StructType([StructField('dd_convs', FloatType(), True)])
>>>>> for x in range(50, 70): print x, timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv', schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
>>50 0.372850894928
>>51 0.376906871796
>>52 0.381325960159
>>53 0.385444164276
>>54 0.386877775192
>>55 0.388918161392
>>56 0.397624969482
>>57 0.391713142395
>>58 2.62714004517
>>59 2.68421196938
>>60 2.74627685547
>>61 2.81081581116
>>62 3.43532109261
>>63 3.07742786407
>>64 3.03904604912
>>65 3.01616096497
>>66 3.06293702126
>>67 3.09386610985
>>68 3.27610206604
>>69 3.2041969299 Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 15:40 +03:00 от Сергей Романов < romanovsa@inbox.ru.INVALID >:
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>I had narrowed down my problem to a very simple case. I'm sending 27kb parquet in attachment. (file:///data/dump/test2 in example)
>>>Please, can you take a look at it? Why there is performance drop after 57 sum columns?
>>>Welcome to
>>> ____ __
>>> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
>>> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
>>> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
>>> /_/
>>>
>>>Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
>>>SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>>>> import timeit
>>>>>> for x in range(70): print x, timeit.timeit(spark.read.parquet('file:///data/dump/test2').groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
>>>...
>>>SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
>>>SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
>>>SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further details.
>>>0 1.05591607094
>>>1 0.200426101685
>>>2 0.203800916672
>>>3 0.176458120346
>>>4 0.184863805771
>>>5 0.232321023941
>>>6 0.216032981873
>>>7 0.201778173447
>>>8 0.292424917221
>>>9 0.228524923325
>>>10 0.190534114838
>>>11 0.197028160095
>>>12 0.270443916321
>>>13 0.429781913757
>>>14 0.270851135254
>>>15 0.776989936829
>>>16 0.233337879181
>>>17 0.227638959885
>>>18 0.212944030762
>>>19 0.2144780159
>>>20 0.22200012207
>>>21 0.262261152267
>>>22 0.254227876663
>>>23 0.275084018707
>>>24 0.292124032974
>>>25 0.280488014221
>>>16/09/03 15:31:28 WARN Utils: Truncated the string representation of a plan since it was too large. This behavior can be adjusted by setting 'spark.debug.maxToStringFields' in SparkEnv.conf.
>>>26 0.290093898773
>>>27 0.238478899002
>>>28 0.246420860291
>>>29 0.241401195526
>>>30 0.255286931992
>>>31 0.42702794075
>>>32 0.327946186066
>>>33 0.434395074844
>>>34 0.314198970795
>>>35 0.34576010704
>>>36 0.278323888779
>>>37 0.289474964142
>>>38 0.290827989578
>>>39 0.376291036606
>>>40 0.347742080688
>>>41 0.363158941269
>>>42 0.318687915802
>>>43 0.376327991486
>>>44 0.374994039536
>>>45 0.362971067429
>>>46 0.425967931747
>>>47 0.370860099792
>>>48 0.443903923035
>>>49 0.374128103256
>>>50 0.378985881805
>>>51 0.476850986481
>>>52 0.451028823853
>>>53 0.432540893555
>>>54 0.514838933945
>>>55 0.53990483284
>>>56 0.449142932892
>>>57 0.465240001678 // 5x slower after 57 columns
>>>58 2.40412116051
>>>59 2.41632795334
>>>60 2.41812801361
>>>61 2.55726218224
>>>62 2.55484509468
>>>63 2.56128406525
>>>64 2.54642391205
>>>65 2.56381797791
>>>66 2.56871509552
>>>67 2.66187620163
>>>68 2.63496208191
>>>69 2.81545996666
>>>
>>>Sergei Romanov
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>>Sergei Romanov
>><bad.csv.tgz>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
Re: Re[6]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field to aggregation.
Posted by Gavin Yue <yu...@gmail.com>.
Any shuffling?
> On Sep 3, 2016, at 5:50 AM, ���֧�ԧ֧� ����ާѧߧ�� <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Same problem happens with CSV data file, so it's not parquet-related either.
>
>
> Welcome to
> ____ __
> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
> /_/
>
> Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
> SparkSession available as 'spark'.
> >>> import timeit
> >>> from pyspark.sql.types import *
> >>> schema = StructType([StructField('dd_convs', FloatType(), True)])
> >>> for x in range(50, 70): print x, timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv', schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
> 50 0.372850894928
> 51 0.376906871796
> 52 0.381325960159
> 53 0.385444164276
> 54 0.386877775192
> 55 0.388918161392
> 56 0.397624969482
> 57 0.391713142395
> 58 2.62714004517
> 59 2.68421196938
> 60 2.74627685547
> 61 2.81081581116
> 62 3.43532109261
> 63 3.07742786407
> 64 3.03904604912
> 65 3.01616096497
> 66 3.06293702126
> 67 3.09386610985
> 68 3.27610206604
> 69 3.2041969299
>
> ����ҧҧ���, 3 ��֧ߧ��ҧ�� 2016, 15:40 +03:00 ��� ���֧�ԧ֧� ����ާѧߧ�� <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>:
>
> Hi,
>
> I had narrowed down my problem to a very simple case. I'm sending 27kb parquet in attachment. (file:///data/dump/test2 in example)
>
> Please, can you take a look at it? Why there is performance drop after 57 sum columns?
>
> Welcome to
> ____ __
> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
> /_/
>
> Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
> SparkSession available as 'spark'.
> >>> import timeit
> >>> for x in range(70): print x, timeit.timeit(spark.read.parquet('file:///data/dump/test2').groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
> ...
> SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
> SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
> SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further details.
> 0 1.05591607094
> 1 0.200426101685
> 2 0.203800916672
> 3 0.176458120346
> 4 0.184863805771
> 5 0.232321023941
> 6 0.216032981873
> 7 0.201778173447
> 8 0.292424917221
> 9 0.228524923325
> 10 0.190534114838
> 11 0.197028160095
> 12 0.270443916321
> 13 0.429781913757
> 14 0.270851135254
> 15 0.776989936829
> 16 0.233337879181
> 17 0.227638959885
> 18 0.212944030762
> 19 0.2144780159
> 20 0.22200012207
> 21 0.262261152267
> 22 0.254227876663
> 23 0.275084018707
> 24 0.292124032974
> 25 0.280488014221
> 16/09/03 15:31:28 WARN Utils: Truncated the string representation of a plan since it was too large. This behavior can be adjusted by setting 'spark.debug.maxToStringFields' in SparkEnv.conf.
> 26 0.290093898773
> 27 0.238478899002
> 28 0.246420860291
> 29 0.241401195526
> 30 0.255286931992
> 31 0.42702794075
> 32 0.327946186066
> 33 0.434395074844
> 34 0.314198970795
> 35 0.34576010704
> 36 0.278323888779
> 37 0.289474964142
> 38 0.290827989578
> 39 0.376291036606
> 40 0.347742080688
> 41 0.363158941269
> 42 0.318687915802
> 43 0.376327991486
> 44 0.374994039536
> 45 0.362971067429
> 46 0.425967931747
> 47 0.370860099792
> 48 0.443903923035
> 49 0.374128103256
> 50 0.378985881805
> 51 0.476850986481
> 52 0.451028823853
> 53 0.432540893555
> 54 0.514838933945
> 55 0.53990483284
> 56 0.449142932892
> 57 0.465240001678 // 5x slower after 57 columns
> 58 2.40412116051
> 59 2.41632795334
> 60 2.41812801361
> 61 2.55726218224
> 62 2.55484509468
> 63 2.56128406525
> 64 2.54642391205
> 65 2.56381797791
> 66 2.56871509552
> 67 2.66187620163
> 68 2.63496208191
> 69 2.81545996666
>
>
>
> Sergei Romanov
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
> Sergei Romanov
> <bad.csv.tgz>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
Re[6]: Spark 2.0: SQL runs 5x times slower when adding 29th field to aggregation.
Posted by Сергей Романов <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>.
Same problem happens with CSV data file, so it's not parquet-related either.
Welcome to
____ __
/ __/__ ___ _____/ /__
_\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
/__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
/_/
Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>> import timeit
>>> from pyspark.sql.types import *
>>> schema = StructType([StructField('dd_convs', FloatType(), True)])
>>> for x in range(50, 70): print x, timeit.timeit(spark.read.csv('file:///data/dump/test_csv', schema=schema).groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
50 0.372850894928
51 0.376906871796
52 0.381325960159
53 0.385444164276
54 0.386877775192
55 0.388918161392
56 0.397624969482
57 0.391713142395
58 2.62714004517
59 2.68421196938
60 2.74627685547
61 2.81081581116
62 3.43532109261
63 3.07742786407
64 3.03904604912
65 3.01616096497
66 3.06293702126
67 3.09386610985
68 3.27610206604
69 3.2041969299 Суббота, 3 сентября 2016, 15:40 +03:00 от Сергей Романов <ro...@inbox.ru.INVALID>:
>
>Hi,
>I had narrowed down my problem to a very simple case. I'm sending 27kb parquet in attachment. (file:///data/dump/test2 in example)
>Please, can you take a look at it? Why there is performance drop after 57 sum columns?
>Welcome to
> ____ __
> / __/__ ___ _____/ /__
> _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ __/ '_/
> /__ / .__/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ version 2.0.0
> /_/
>
>Using Python version 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015 17:58:13)
>SparkSession available as 'spark'.
>>>> import timeit
>>>> for x in range(70): print x, timeit.timeit(spark.read.parquet('file:///data/dump/test2').groupBy().sum(*(['dd_convs'] * x) ).collect, number=1)
>...
>SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
>SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
>SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further details.
>0 1.05591607094
>1 0.200426101685
>2 0.203800916672
>3 0.176458120346
>4 0.184863805771
>5 0.232321023941
>6 0.216032981873
>7 0.201778173447
>8 0.292424917221
>9 0.228524923325
>10 0.190534114838
>11 0.197028160095
>12 0.270443916321
>13 0.429781913757
>14 0.270851135254
>15 0.776989936829
>16 0.233337879181
>17 0.227638959885
>18 0.212944030762
>19 0.2144780159
>20 0.22200012207
>21 0.262261152267
>22 0.254227876663
>23 0.275084018707
>24 0.292124032974
>25 0.280488014221
>16/09/03 15:31:28 WARN Utils: Truncated the string representation of a plan since it was too large. This behavior can be adjusted by setting 'spark.debug.maxToStringFields' in SparkEnv.conf.
>26 0.290093898773
>27 0.238478899002
>28 0.246420860291
>29 0.241401195526
>30 0.255286931992
>31 0.42702794075
>32 0.327946186066
>33 0.434395074844
>34 0.314198970795
>35 0.34576010704
>36 0.278323888779
>37 0.289474964142
>38 0.290827989578
>39 0.376291036606
>40 0.347742080688
>41 0.363158941269
>42 0.318687915802
>43 0.376327991486
>44 0.374994039536
>45 0.362971067429
>46 0.425967931747
>47 0.370860099792
>48 0.443903923035
>49 0.374128103256
>50 0.378985881805
>51 0.476850986481
>52 0.451028823853
>53 0.432540893555
>54 0.514838933945
>55 0.53990483284
>56 0.449142932892
>57 0.465240001678 // 5x slower after 57 columns
>58 2.40412116051
>59 2.41632795334
>60 2.41812801361
>61 2.55726218224
>62 2.55484509468
>63 2.56128406525
>64 2.54642391205
>65 2.56381797791
>66 2.56871509552
>67 2.66187620163
>68 2.63496208191
>69 2.81545996666
>
>Sergei Romanov
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe e-mail: user-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
Sergei Romanov