Thanks Silvio. I need grouped map pandas UDF which takes a spark data frame as the input and outputs a spark data frame having a different shape from input. Grouped map is kind of unique to pandas udf and I have trouble to find a similar non pandas udf for an apple to apple comparison. Let me know if you have better idea for investigating grouped map pandas udf slowness.
One potential work around could be grouping the 250M records by id. For each group, do groupby(‘id’).apply(pd_udf). Not sure which way is more promising compared with repartition + mapPartition, reduceByKey, combineByKey. Appreciate any clue. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 5, 2020, at 6:18 AM, Silvio Fiorito <silvio.fior...@granturing.com> > wrote: > > > Your 2 examples are doing different things. > > The Pandas UDF is doing a grouped map, whereas your Python UDF is doing an > aggregate. > > I think you want your Pandas UDF to be PandasUDFType.GROUPED_AGG? Is your > result the same? > > From: Lian Jiang <jiangok2...@gmail.com> > Date: Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 3:28 AM > To: user <user@spark.apache.org> > Subject: pandas_udf is very slow > > Hi, > > I am using pandas udf in pyspark 2.4.3 on EMR 5.21.0. pandas udf is favored > over non pandas udf per > https://www.twosigma.com/wp-content/uploads/Jin_-_Improving_Python__Spark_Performance_-_Spark_Summit_West.pdf. > > My data has about 250M records and the pandas udf code is like: > > def pd_udf_func(data): > return pd.DataFrame(["id"]) > > pd_udf = pandas_udf( > pd_udf_func, > returnType=("id int"), > functionType=PandasUDFType.GROUPED_MAP > ) > df3 = df.groupBy("id").apply(pd_udf) > df3.explain() > """ > == Physical Plan == > FlatMapGroupsInPandas [id#9L], pd_udf_func(id#9L, txt#10), [id#30] > +- *(2) Sort [id#9L ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0 > +- Exchange hashpartitioning(id#9L, 200) > +- *(1) Project [id#9L, id#9L, txt#10] > +- Scan ExistingRDD[id#9L,txt#10] > """ > > As you can see, this pandas udf does nothing but returning a row having a > pandas dataframe having None values. In reality, this pandas udf has > complicated logic (e.g. iterate through the pandas dataframe rows and do some > calculation). This simplification is to reduce noise caused by application > specific logic. This pandas udf takes hours to run using 10 executors (14 > cores and 64G mem each). On the other hand, below non-pandas udf can finish > in minutes: > > def udf_func(data_list): > return "hello" > > udf = udf(udf_func, StringType()) > df2 = > df.groupBy("id").agg(F.collect_list('txt').alias('txt1')).withColumn('udfadd', > udf('txt1')) > df2.explain() > """ > == Physical Plan == > *(1) Project [id#9L, txt1#16, pythonUDF0#24 AS udfadd#20] > +- BatchEvalPython [udf_func(txt1#16)], [id#9L, txt1#16, pythonUDF0#24] > +- ObjectHashAggregate(keys=[id#9L], functions=[collect_list(txt#10, 0, > 0)]) > +- Exchange hashpartitioning(id#9L, 200) > +- ObjectHashAggregate(keys=[id#9L], > functions=[partial_collect_list(txt#10, 0, 0)]) > +- Scan ExistingRDD[id#9L,txt#10] > """ > > The physical plans show pandas udf uses sortAggregate (slower) while > non-pandas udf uses objectHashAggregate (faster). > > Below is what I have tried to improve the performance of pandas udf but none > of them worked: > 1. repartition before groupby. For example, df.repartition(140, > "id").groupBy("id").apply(pd_udf). 140 is the same as > spark.sql.shuffle.partitions. I hope groupby can benefit from the repartition > but according to the execution plan the repartition seems to be ignored since > groupby will do partitioning itself. > > > 2. although this slowness is more likely caused by pandas udf instead of > groupby, I still played with shuffle settings such as > spark.shuffle.compress=True, spark.shuffle.spill.compress=True. > > > 3. I played with serDe settings such as > spark.serializer=org.apache.spark.serializer.KryoSerializer. Also I tried > pyarrow settings such as spark.sql.execution.arrow.enabled=True and > spark.sql.execution.arrow.maxRecordsPerBatch=100000 > > > 4. I tried to replace the solution of "groupby + pandas udf " with > combineByKey, reduceByKey, repartition + mapPartition. But it is not easy > since the pandas udf has complicated logic. > > > My questions: > > 1. why pandas udf is so slow? > 2. is there a way to improve the performance of pandas_udf? > 3. in case it is a known issue of pandas udf, what other remedy I can use? I > guess I need to think harder on combineByKey, reduceByKey, repartition + > mapPartition. But want to know if I missed anything obvious. > > Any clue is highly appreciated. > > Thanks > Leon > > > >
