Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
For info both AvroIO ReadAll/ParseAll and TextIO ReadAll deprecations were merged into master today and will be part of 2.13.0. For those working in other SDKs (Python, Go) please pay attention to not implement such transforms (or deprecate them too if already done) to keep the API ideas coherent. On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > +1 > > Thanks for that Ismaël. > > Regards > JB > > On 06/02/2019 11:24, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > Since it seems we have consensus on deprecating both transforms I created > > > > BEAM-6605 Deprecate TextIO.readAll() and TextIO.ReadAll transform > > BEAM-6606 Deprecate AvroIO.readAll() and AvroIO.ReadAll transform > > > > Thanks everyone. > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:03 PM Chamikara Jayalath > > wrote: > >> > >> Python SDK doesn't have FileIO yet so let's keep ReadAllFromFoo transforms > >> currently available for various file types around till we have that. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Cham > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:41 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> readFiles() should be used IMHO. We should remove readAll() to avoid > >>> confusion. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >>> On 30/01/2019 17:25, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Hello, > > A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a > `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of > file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is > implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and > then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. > TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the > Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match > + ReadFiles. > > Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more > composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. > > Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely > user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds > more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a > more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it > makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` > of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like > the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. > > So the question is should we: > > [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and > assume the (minor) maintenance cost > > or > > [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use > FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). > > I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if > the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to > see what the python guys think on this too. > > This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz > Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO > signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences? > > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >>> jbono...@apache.org > >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
+1 Thanks for that Ismaël. Regards JB On 06/02/2019 11:24, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Since it seems we have consensus on deprecating both transforms I created > > BEAM-6605 Deprecate TextIO.readAll() and TextIO.ReadAll transform > BEAM-6606 Deprecate AvroIO.readAll() and AvroIO.ReadAll transform > > Thanks everyone. > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:03 PM Chamikara Jayalath > wrote: >> >> Python SDK doesn't have FileIO yet so let's keep ReadAllFromFoo transforms >> currently available for various file types around till we have that. >> >> Thanks, >> Cham >> >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:41 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> readFiles() should be used IMHO. We should remove readAll() to avoid >>> confusion. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On 30/01/2019 17:25, Ismaël Mejía wrote: Hello, A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match + ReadFiles. Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. So the question is should we: [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and assume the (minor) maintenance cost or [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to see what the python guys think on this too. This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences? >>> >>> -- >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> jbono...@apache.org >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Since it seems we have consensus on deprecating both transforms I created BEAM-6605 Deprecate TextIO.readAll() and TextIO.ReadAll transform BEAM-6606 Deprecate AvroIO.readAll() and AvroIO.ReadAll transform Thanks everyone. On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:03 PM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > > Python SDK doesn't have FileIO yet so let's keep ReadAllFromFoo transforms > currently available for various file types around till we have that. > > Thanks, > Cham > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:41 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> readFiles() should be used IMHO. We should remove readAll() to avoid >> confusion. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 30/01/2019 17:25, Ismaël Mejía wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a >> > `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of >> > file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is >> > implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and >> > then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. >> > TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the >> > Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match >> > + ReadFiles. >> > >> > Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more >> > composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. >> > >> > Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely >> > user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds >> > more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a >> > more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it >> > makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` >> > of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like >> > the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. >> > >> > So the question is should we: >> > >> > [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and >> > assume the (minor) maintenance cost >> > >> > or >> > >> > [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use >> > FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). >> > >> > I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if >> > the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to >> > see what the python guys think on this too. >> > >> > This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz >> > Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO >> > signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences? >> > >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> jbono...@apache.org >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Python SDK doesn't have FileIO yet so let's keep ReadAllFromFoo transforms currently available for various file types around till we have that. Thanks, Cham On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:41 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > readFiles() should be used IMHO. We should remove readAll() to avoid > confusion. > > Regards > JB > > On 30/01/2019 17:25, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > Hello, > > > > A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a > > `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of > > file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is > > implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and > > then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. > > TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the > > Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match > > + ReadFiles. > > > > Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more > > composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. > > > > Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely > > user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds > > more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a > > more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it > > makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` > > of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like > > the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. > > > > So the question is should we: > > > > [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and > > assume the (minor) maintenance cost > > > > or > > > > [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use > > FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). > > > > I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if > > the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to > > see what the python guys think on this too. > > > > This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz > > Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO > > signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences? > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Hi, readFiles() should be used IMHO. We should remove readAll() to avoid confusion. Regards JB On 30/01/2019 17:25, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Hello, > > A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a > `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of > file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is > implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and > then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. > TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the > Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match > + ReadFiles. > > Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more > composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. > > Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely > user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds > more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a > more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it > makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` > of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like > the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. > > So the question is should we: > > [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and > assume the (minor) maintenance cost > > or > > [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use > FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). > > I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if > the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to > see what the python guys think on this too. > > This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz > Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO > signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences? > -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
+1 to deprecating and not implementing readAll() in transforms where it is equivalent to matchAll() + readMatches() + readFiles(). It encourages and advertises the use of a nice, composable api reducing the amount of code to be maintained. can the Python/Go SDK align with this? + 1 to that too. pt., 1 lut 2019 o 14:56 Ismaël Mejía napisał(a): > I want to chime in that I am also +1 to deprecating readAll, is there > anyone strongly pro readAll instead of the explicit composition? > And more important, can the Python/Go SDK align with this (deprecating > ReadAll and implementing ReadFiles)? > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:34 AM Chamikara Jayalath > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the clarification Ismaël and Eugene. +1 for deprecating > existing FooIO.readAll() transforms in favor of FooIO.readFiles(). > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:25 PM Eugene Kirpichov > wrote: > >> > >> TextIO.read() and AvroIO.read() indeed perform better than match() + > readMatches() + readFiles(), due to DWR - so for these two in particular I > would not recommend such a refactoring. > >> However, new file-based IOs that do not support DWR should only provide > readFiles(). Those that do, should provide read() and readFiles(). When SDF > supports DWR, then readFiles() will be enough in all cases. > >> In general there's no need for readAll() for new file-based IOs - it is > always equivalent to matchAll() + readMatches() + readFiles() including > performance-wise. It was included in TextIO/AvroIO before readFiles() was a > thing. > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Chamikara Jayalath < > chamik...@google.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Chamikara Jayalath < > chamik...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:33 PM Ismaël Mejía > wrote: > > > > Ups slight typo, in the first line of the previous email I meant read > > instead of readAll > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Ismaël Mejía > wrote: > > > > > > Reuven is right for the example, readAll at this moment may be > faster > > > and also supports Dynamic Work Rebalancing (DWR), but the > performance > > > of the other approach may (and must) be improved to be equal, once > the > > > internal implementation of TextIO.read moves to a SDF version > instead > > > of the FileBasedSource one, and once that runners support DWR > through > > > SDF. Of course all of this is future work. Probably Eugene can > > > eventually chime in to give more details in practical performance > in > > > his tests in Dataflow. > > > > > > Really interesting topic, but I want to bring back the discussion > to > > > the subject of the thread. I think there is some confusion after > > > Jeff's example which should have been: > > > > > > return input > > > .apply(TextIO.readAll()); > > > > > > to: > > > > > > return input > > > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) > > > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) > > > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); > > > > > > This is the question we are addressing, do we need a readAll > transform > > > that replaces the 3 steps or no? > > > Ismaël, I'm not quite sure how these two are equal. readFiles() > transform returns a PCollection of ReadableFile objects. Users are expected > to read these files in a subsequent ParDo and produce a PCollection of > proper type. FooIO.ReadAll() transforms on the other hand are tailored to > each IO connector and return a PCollection of objects of type that are > supported to be returned by that IO connector. > >>> > >>> > >>> I assume you meant FileIO.readFiles() here. Or did you mean > TextIO.readFiles() ? If so that seems very similar to TextIO.readAll(). > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:03 PM Robert Bradshaw < > rober...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet > using it? The promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas < > jklu...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the > topic Ismaël is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the > two examples have different performance characteristics. > > > > >> > > > > >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental > difference is whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to > io.Read. AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is not > documented. > > > > >> > > > > >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
I want to chime in that I am also +1 to deprecating readAll, is there anyone strongly pro readAll instead of the explicit composition? And more important, can the Python/Go SDK align with this (deprecating ReadAll and implementing ReadFiles)? On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:34 AM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification Ismaël and Eugene. +1 for deprecating existing > FooIO.readAll() transforms in favor of FooIO.readFiles(). > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:25 PM Eugene Kirpichov wrote: >> >> TextIO.read() and AvroIO.read() indeed perform better than match() + >> readMatches() + readFiles(), due to DWR - so for these two in particular I >> would not recommend such a refactoring. >> However, new file-based IOs that do not support DWR should only provide >> readFiles(). Those that do, should provide read() and readFiles(). When SDF >> supports DWR, then readFiles() will be enough in all cases. >> In general there's no need for readAll() for new file-based IOs - it is >> always equivalent to matchAll() + readMatches() + readFiles() including >> performance-wise. It was included in TextIO/AvroIO before readFiles() was a >> thing. >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Chamikara Jayalath >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Chamikara Jayalath >>> wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:33 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > Ups slight typo, in the first line of the previous email I meant read > instead of readAll > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > > > Reuven is right for the example, readAll at this moment may be faster > > and also supports Dynamic Work Rebalancing (DWR), but the performance > > of the other approach may (and must) be improved to be equal, once the > > internal implementation of TextIO.read moves to a SDF version instead > > of the FileBasedSource one, and once that runners support DWR through > > SDF. Of course all of this is future work. Probably Eugene can > > eventually chime in to give more details in practical performance in > > his tests in Dataflow. > > > > Really interesting topic, but I want to bring back the discussion to > > the subject of the thread. I think there is some confusion after > > Jeff's example which should have been: > > > > return input > > .apply(TextIO.readAll()); > > > > to: > > > > return input > > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) > > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) > > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); > > > > This is the question we are addressing, do we need a readAll transform > > that replaces the 3 steps or no? Ismaël, I'm not quite sure how these two are equal. readFiles() transform returns a PCollection of ReadableFile objects. Users are expected to read these files in a subsequent ParDo and produce a PCollection of proper type. FooIO.ReadAll() transforms on the other hand are tailored to each IO connector and return a PCollection of objects of type that are supported to be returned by that IO connector. >>> >>> >>> I assume you meant FileIO.readFiles() here. Or did you mean >>> TextIO.readFiles() ? If so that seems very similar to TextIO.readAll(). > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:03 PM Robert Bradshaw > > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using > > > > it? The promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? > > > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the > > > >> topic Ismaël is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear > > > >> that the two examples have different performance characteristics. > > > >> > > > >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental > > > >> difference is whether a given configuration expands to > > > >> TextIO.ReadAll or to io.Read. AFAICT, that detail and the > > > >> subsequent performance impact is not documented. > > > >> > > > >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to > > > >> provide higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize > > > >> performance compared to what a user might naively put together. > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two > > > >>> are quite different, and will likely have different performance > > > >>> characteristics. > > > >>> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Thanks for the clarification Ismaël and Eugene. +1 for deprecating existing FooIO.readAll() transforms in favor of FooIO.readFiles(). On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:25 PM Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > TextIO.read() and AvroIO.read() indeed perform better than match() + > readMatches() + readFiles(), due to DWR - so for these two in particular I > would not recommend such a refactoring. > However, new file-based IOs that do not support DWR should only provide > readFiles(). Those that do, should provide read() and readFiles(). When SDF > supports DWR, then readFiles() will be enough in all cases. > In general there's no need for readAll() for new file-based IOs - it is > always equivalent to matchAll() + readMatches() + readFiles() including > performance-wise. It was included in TextIO/AvroIO before readFiles() was a > thing. > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Chamikara Jayalath > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Chamikara Jayalath >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:33 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: >>> Ups slight typo, in the first line of the previous email I meant read instead of readAll On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > Reuven is right for the example, readAll at this moment may be faster > and also supports Dynamic Work Rebalancing (DWR), but the performance > of the other approach may (and must) be improved to be equal, once the > internal implementation of TextIO.read moves to a SDF version instead > of the FileBasedSource one, and once that runners support DWR through > SDF. Of course all of this is future work. Probably Eugene can > eventually chime in to give more details in practical performance in > his tests in Dataflow. > > Really interesting topic, but I want to bring back the discussion to > the subject of the thread. I think there is some confusion after > Jeff's example which should have been: > > return input > .apply(TextIO.readAll()); > > to: > > return input > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); > > This is the question we are addressing, do we need a readAll transform > that replaces the 3 steps or no? >>> >>> Ismaël, I'm not quite sure how these two are equal. >>> readFiles() transform returns a PCollection of ReadableFile objects. Users >>> are expected to read these files in a subsequent ParDo and produce a >>> PCollection of proper type. FooIO.ReadAll() transforms on the other hand >>> are tailored to each IO connector and return a PCollection of objects of >>> type that are supported to be returned by that IO connector. >>> >> >> I assume you meant FileIO.readFiles() here. Or did you mean >> TextIO.readFiles() ? If so that seems very similar to TextIO.readAll(). >> >>> >>> >>> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:03 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > > > Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > > > > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using it? The promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: > > >> > > >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the topic Ismaël is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the two examples have different performance characteristics. > > >> > > >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental difference is whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to io.Read. AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is not documented. > > >> > > >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to provide higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance compared to what a user might naively put together. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two are quite different, and will likely have different performance characteristics. > > >>> > > >>> The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case of the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. > > >>> > > >>> The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and processes each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each file into 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
TextIO.read() and AvroIO.read() indeed perform better than match() + readMatches() + readFiles(), due to DWR - so for these two in particular I would not recommend such a refactoring. However, new file-based IOs that do not support DWR should only provide readFiles(). Those that do, should provide read() and readFiles(). When SDF supports DWR, then readFiles() will be enough in all cases. In general there's no need for readAll() for new file-based IOs - it is always equivalent to matchAll() + readMatches() + readFiles() including performance-wise. It was included in TextIO/AvroIO before readFiles() was a thing. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Chamikara Jayalath > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:33 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: >> >>> Ups slight typo, in the first line of the previous email I meant read >>> instead of readAll >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: >>> > >>> > Reuven is right for the example, readAll at this moment may be faster >>> > and also supports Dynamic Work Rebalancing (DWR), but the performance >>> > of the other approach may (and must) be improved to be equal, once the >>> > internal implementation of TextIO.read moves to a SDF version instead >>> > of the FileBasedSource one, and once that runners support DWR through >>> > SDF. Of course all of this is future work. Probably Eugene can >>> > eventually chime in to give more details in practical performance in >>> > his tests in Dataflow. >>> > >>> > Really interesting topic, but I want to bring back the discussion to >>> > the subject of the thread. I think there is some confusion after >>> > Jeff's example which should have been: >>> > >>> > return input >>> > .apply(TextIO.readAll()); >>> > >>> > to: >>> > >>> > return input >>> > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) >>> > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) >>> > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); >>> > >>> > This is the question we are addressing, do we need a readAll transform >>> > that replaces the 3 steps or no? >>> >> >> Ismaël, I'm not quite sure how these two are equal. readFiles() transform >> returns a PCollection of ReadableFile objects. Users are expected to read >> these files in a subsequent ParDo and produce a PCollection of proper type. >> FooIO.ReadAll() transforms on the other hand are tailored to each IO >> connector and return a PCollection of objects of type that are supported to >> be returned by that IO connector. >> > > I assume you meant FileIO.readFiles() here. Or did you mean > TextIO.readFiles() ? If so that seems very similar to TextIO.readAll(). > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:03 PM Robert Bradshaw >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using >>> it? The promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? >>> > > > >>> > > > Kenn >>> > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas >>> wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the >>> topic Ismaël is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the >>> two examples have different performance characteristics. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental >>> difference is whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to >>> io.Read. AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is not >>> documented. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to >>> provide higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance >>> compared to what a user might naively put together. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two >>> are quite different, and will likely have different performance >>> characteristics. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick >>> appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are >>> small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case of >>> the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and >>> processes each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each >>> file into 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a ParDo. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> Reuven >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the >>> following refactor in my own code from: >>> > > >>> > > return input >>> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
I meant TextIO.readFiles(). As you mention Cham they are in reality the 'same'. TextIO.readAll = FileIO.match() . FileIO.readMatches . TextIO.readFiles And this pattern can be repeated to all other file-based IOs. The whole point of this discussion is to decide if such 'wrapper' tranform (ReadAll) makes sense or not in order to be consistent in all IOs (we aren't at this moment as I mention in detail in the first post). On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:48 PM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Chamikara Jayalath > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:33 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: >>> >>> Ups slight typo, in the first line of the previous email I meant read >>> instead of readAll >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: >>> > >>> > Reuven is right for the example, readAll at this moment may be faster >>> > and also supports Dynamic Work Rebalancing (DWR), but the performance >>> > of the other approach may (and must) be improved to be equal, once the >>> > internal implementation of TextIO.read moves to a SDF version instead >>> > of the FileBasedSource one, and once that runners support DWR through >>> > SDF. Of course all of this is future work. Probably Eugene can >>> > eventually chime in to give more details in practical performance in >>> > his tests in Dataflow. >>> > >>> > Really interesting topic, but I want to bring back the discussion to >>> > the subject of the thread. I think there is some confusion after >>> > Jeff's example which should have been: >>> > >>> > return input >>> > .apply(TextIO.readAll()); >>> > >>> > to: >>> > >>> > return input >>> > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) >>> > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) >>> > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); >>> > >>> > This is the question we are addressing, do we need a readAll transform >>> > that replaces the 3 steps or no? >> >> >> Ismaël, I'm not quite sure how these two are equal. readFiles() transform >> returns a PCollection of ReadableFile objects. Users are expected to read >> these files in a subsequent ParDo and produce a PCollection of proper type. >> FooIO.ReadAll() transforms on the other hand are tailored to each IO >> connector and return a PCollection of objects of type that are supported to >> be returned by that IO connector. > > > I assume you meant FileIO.readFiles() here. Or did you mean > TextIO.readFiles() ? If so that seems very similar to TextIO.readAll(). >> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:03 PM Robert Bradshaw >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using >>> > > > it? The promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? >>> > > > >>> > > > Kenn >>> > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the topic >>> > > >> Ismaël is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the >>> > > >> two examples have different performance characteristics. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental >>> > > >> difference is whether a given configuration expands to >>> > > >> TextIO.ReadAll or to io.Read. AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent >>> > > >> performance impact is not documented. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to provide >>> > > >> higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance >>> > > >> compared to what a user might naively put together. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax wrote: >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two are >>> > > >>> quite different, and will likely have different performance >>> > > >>> characteristics. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick >>> > > >>> appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they >>> > > >>> are small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In >>> > > >>> the case of the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split >>> > > >>> dynamically. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and >>> > > >>> processes each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops >>> > > >>> up each file into 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each >>> > > >>> chunk in a ParDo. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> Reuven >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas >>> > > >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the >>> > > following refactor in my own code from: >>> > > >>> > > return input >>> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:33 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > >> Ups slight typo, in the first line of the previous email I meant read >> instead of readAll >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: >> > >> > Reuven is right for the example, readAll at this moment may be faster >> > and also supports Dynamic Work Rebalancing (DWR), but the performance >> > of the other approach may (and must) be improved to be equal, once the >> > internal implementation of TextIO.read moves to a SDF version instead >> > of the FileBasedSource one, and once that runners support DWR through >> > SDF. Of course all of this is future work. Probably Eugene can >> > eventually chime in to give more details in practical performance in >> > his tests in Dataflow. >> > >> > Really interesting topic, but I want to bring back the discussion to >> > the subject of the thread. I think there is some confusion after >> > Jeff's example which should have been: >> > >> > return input >> > .apply(TextIO.readAll()); >> > >> > to: >> > >> > return input >> > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) >> > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) >> > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); >> > >> > This is the question we are addressing, do we need a readAll transform >> > that replaces the 3 steps or no? >> > > Ismaël, I'm not quite sure how these two are equal. readFiles() transform > returns a PCollection of ReadableFile objects. Users are expected to read > these files in a subsequent ParDo and produce a PCollection of proper type. > FooIO.ReadAll() transforms on the other hand are tailored to each IO > connector and return a PCollection of objects of type that are supported to > be returned by that IO connector. > I assume you meant FileIO.readFiles() here. Or did you mean TextIO.readFiles() ? If so that seems very similar to TextIO.readAll(). > > > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:03 PM Robert Bradshaw >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using >> it? The promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? >> > > > >> > > > Kenn >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the >> topic Ismaël is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the >> two examples have different performance characteristics. >> > > >> >> > > >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental >> difference is whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to >> io.Read. AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is not >> documented. >> > > >> >> > > >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to >> provide higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance >> compared to what a user might naively put together. >> > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax >> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two >> are quite different, and will likely have different performance >> characteristics. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick >> appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are >> small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case of >> the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and >> processes each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each >> file into 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a ParDo. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Reuven >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas >> wrote: >> > > >> > > I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the >> following refactor in my own code from: >> > > >> > > return input >> > > .apply(TextIO.read().from(fileSpec)); >> > > >> > > to: >> > > >> > > return input >> > > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) >> > > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) >> > > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); >> > > >> > > Yes, the latter is more verbose but not ridiculously so, and >> it's also more instructive about what's happening. >> > > >> > > When I first started working with Beam, it took me a while to >> realize that TextIO.read().from() would accept a wildcard. The more verbose >> version involves a method called "filepattern" which makes this much more >> obvious. It also leads me to understand that I could use the same >> FileIO.match() machinery to do other things with filesystems
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:33 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Ups slight typo, in the first line of the previous email I meant read > instead of readAll > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > > > Reuven is right for the example, readAll at this moment may be faster > > and also supports Dynamic Work Rebalancing (DWR), but the performance > > of the other approach may (and must) be improved to be equal, once the > > internal implementation of TextIO.read moves to a SDF version instead > > of the FileBasedSource one, and once that runners support DWR through > > SDF. Of course all of this is future work. Probably Eugene can > > eventually chime in to give more details in practical performance in > > his tests in Dataflow. > > > > Really interesting topic, but I want to bring back the discussion to > > the subject of the thread. I think there is some confusion after > > Jeff's example which should have been: > > > > return input > > .apply(TextIO.readAll()); > > > > to: > > > > return input > > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) > > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) > > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); > > > > This is the question we are addressing, do we need a readAll transform > > that replaces the 3 steps or no? > Ismaël, I'm not quite sure how these two are equal. readFiles() transform returns a PCollection of ReadableFile objects. Users are expected to read these files in a subsequent ParDo and produce a PCollection of proper type. FooIO.ReadAll() transforms on the other hand are tailored to each IO connector and return a PCollection of objects of type that are supported to be returned by that IO connector. > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:03 PM Robert Bradshaw > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles > wrote: > > > > > > > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using > it? The promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? > > > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the topic > Ismaël is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the two > examples have different performance characteristics. > > > >> > > > >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental > difference is whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to > io.Read. AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is not > documented. > > > >> > > > >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to > provide higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance > compared to what a user might naively put together. > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two are > quite different, and will likely have different performance characteristics. > > > >>> > > > >>> The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick > appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are > small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case of > the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. > > > >>> > > > >>> The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and > processes each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each > file into 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a ParDo. > > > >>> > > > >>> Reuven > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas > wrote: > > > > > > I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the > following refactor in my own code from: > > > > > > return input > > > .apply(TextIO.read().from(fileSpec)); > > > > > > to: > > > > > > return input > > > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) > > > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) > > > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); > > > > > > Yes, the latter is more verbose but not ridiculously so, and it's > also more instructive about what's happening. > > > > > > When I first started working with Beam, it took me a while to > realize that TextIO.read().from() would accept a wildcard. The more verbose > version involves a method called "filepattern" which makes this much more > obvious. It also leads me to understand that I could use the same > FileIO.match() machinery to do other things with filesystems other than > read file contents. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Ismaël Mejía > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a > > > > `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a > `PCollection` of > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Ups slight typo, in the first line of the previous email I meant read instead of readAll On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > Reuven is right for the example, readAll at this moment may be faster > and also supports Dynamic Work Rebalancing (DWR), but the performance > of the other approach may (and must) be improved to be equal, once the > internal implementation of TextIO.read moves to a SDF version instead > of the FileBasedSource one, and once that runners support DWR through > SDF. Of course all of this is future work. Probably Eugene can > eventually chime in to give more details in practical performance in > his tests in Dataflow. > > Really interesting topic, but I want to bring back the discussion to > the subject of the thread. I think there is some confusion after > Jeff's example which should have been: > > return input > .apply(TextIO.readAll()); > > to: > > return input > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); > > This is the question we are addressing, do we need a readAll transform > that replaces the 3 steps or no? > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:03 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > > > Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > > > > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using it? > > > The promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: > > >> > > >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the topic > > >> Ismaël is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the two > > >> examples have different performance characteristics. > > >> > > >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental difference > > >> is whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to > > >> io.Read. AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is > > >> not documented. > > >> > > >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to provide > > >> higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance > > >> compared to what a user might naively put together. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two are > > >>> quite different, and will likely have different performance > > >>> characteristics. > > >>> > > >>> The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick > > >>> appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are > > >>> small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case > > >>> of the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. > > >>> > > >>> The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and processes > > >>> each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each file > > >>> into 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a ParDo. > > >>> > > >>> Reuven > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: > > > > I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the following > > refactor in my own code from: > > > > return input > > .apply(TextIO.read().from(fileSpec)); > > > > to: > > > > return input > > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) > > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) > > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); > > > > Yes, the latter is more verbose but not ridiculously so, and it's also > > more instructive about what's happening. > > > > When I first started working with Beam, it took me a while to realize > > that TextIO.read().from() would accept a wildcard. The more verbose > > version involves a method called "filepattern" which makes this much > > more obvious. It also leads me to understand that I could use the same > > FileIO.match() machinery to do other things with filesystems other > > than read file contents. > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Ismaël Mejía > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a > > > `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of > > > file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is > > > implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and > > > then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. > > > TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the > > > Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match > > > + ReadFiles. > > > > > > Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Reuven is right for the example, readAll at this moment may be faster and also supports Dynamic Work Rebalancing (DWR), but the performance of the other approach may (and must) be improved to be equal, once the internal implementation of TextIO.read moves to a SDF version instead of the FileBasedSource one, and once that runners support DWR through SDF. Of course all of this is future work. Probably Eugene can eventually chime in to give more details in practical performance in his tests in Dataflow. Really interesting topic, but I want to bring back the discussion to the subject of the thread. I think there is some confusion after Jeff's example which should have been: return input .apply(TextIO.readAll()); to: return input .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); This is the question we are addressing, do we need a readAll transform that replaces the 3 steps or no? On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:03 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using it? The > > promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? > > > > Kenn > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: > >> > >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the topic Ismaël > >> is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the two examples > >> have different performance characteristics. > >> > >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental difference is > >> whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to io.Read. > >> AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is not > >> documented. > >> > >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to provide > >> higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance compared > >> to what a user might naively put together. > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax wrote: > >>> > >>> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two are quite > >>> different, and will likely have different performance characteristics. > >>> > >>> The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick > >>> appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are > >>> small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case of > >>> the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. > >>> > >>> The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and processes > >>> each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each file into > >>> 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a ParDo. > >>> > >>> Reuven > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: > > I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the following > refactor in my own code from: > > return input > .apply(TextIO.read().from(fileSpec)); > > to: > > return input > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); > > Yes, the latter is more verbose but not ridiculously so, and it's also > more instructive about what's happening. > > When I first started working with Beam, it took me a while to realize > that TextIO.read().from() would accept a wildcard. The more verbose > version involves a method called "filepattern" which makes this much > more obvious. It also leads me to understand that I could use the same > FileIO.match() machinery to do other things with filesystems other than > read file contents. > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a > > `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of > > file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is > > implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and > > then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. > > TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the > > Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match > > + ReadFiles. > > > > Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more > > composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. > > > > Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely > > user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds > > more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a > > more abstract pattern that applies not only to
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Yes, this is precisely the goal of SDF. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:41 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using it? The > promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? > > Kenn > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: >> >> Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the topic Ismaël >> is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the two examples >> have different performance characteristics. >> >> Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental difference is >> whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to io.Read. >> AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is not documented. >> >> If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to provide >> higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance compared >> to what a user might naively put together. >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax wrote: >>> >>> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two are quite >>> different, and will likely have different performance characteristics. >>> >>> The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick appropriate >>> bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are small), and the >>> runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case of the Dataflow >>> runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. >>> >>> The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and processes each >>> chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each file into 64mb >>> chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a ParDo. >>> >>> Reuven >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the following refactor in my own code from: return input .apply(TextIO.read().from(fileSpec)); to: return input .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); Yes, the latter is more verbose but not ridiculously so, and it's also more instructive about what's happening. When I first started working with Beam, it took me a while to realize that TextIO.read().from() would accept a wildcard. The more verbose version involves a method called "filepattern" which makes this much more obvious. It also leads me to understand that I could use the same FileIO.match() machinery to do other things with filesystems other than read file contents. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > Hello, > > A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a > `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of > file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is > implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and > then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. > TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the > Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match > + ReadFiles. > > Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more > composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. > > Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely > user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds > more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a > more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it > makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` > of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like > the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. > > So the question is should we: > > [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and > assume the (minor) maintenance cost > > or > > [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use > FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). > > I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if > the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to > see what the python guys think on this too. > > This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz > Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO > signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences?
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
So is the latter is intended for splittable DoFn but not yet using it? The promise of SDF is precisely this composability, isn't it? Kenn On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: > Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the topic Ismaël > is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the two examples > have different performance characteristics. > > Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental difference is > whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to io.Read. > AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is not > documented. > > If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to provide > higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance compared > to what a user might naively put together. > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax wrote: > >> Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two are quite >> different, and will likely have different performance characteristics. >> >> The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick >> appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are >> small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case of >> the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. >> >> The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and processes >> each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each file into >> 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a ParDo. >> >> Reuven >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: >> >>> I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the following >>> refactor in my own code from: >>> >>> return input >>> .apply(TextIO.read().from(fileSpec)); >>> >>> to: >>> >>> return input >>> .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) >>> .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) >>> .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); >>> >>> Yes, the latter is more verbose but not ridiculously so, and it's also >>> more instructive about what's happening. >>> >>> When I first started working with Beam, it took me a while to realize >>> that TextIO.read().from() would accept a wildcard. The more verbose version >>> involves a method called "filepattern" which makes this much more obvious. >>> It also leads me to understand that I could use the same FileIO.match() >>> machinery to do other things with filesystems other than read file >>> contents. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: >>> Hello, A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match + ReadFiles. Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. So the question is should we: [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and assume the (minor) maintenance cost or [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to see what the python guys think on this too. This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences? >>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Reuven - Is TextIO.read().from() a more complex case than the topic Ismaël is bringing up in this thread? I'm surprised to hear that the two examples have different performance characteristics. Reading through the implementation, I guess the fundamental difference is whether a given configuration expands to TextIO.ReadAll or to io.Read. AFAICT, that detail and the subsequent performance impact is not documented. If the above is correct, perhaps it's an argument for IOs to provide higher-level methods in cases where they can optimize performance compared to what a user might naively put together. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM Reuven Lax wrote: > Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two are quite > different, and will likely have different performance characteristics. > > The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick > appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are > small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case of > the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. > > The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and processes > each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each file into > 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a ParDo. > > Reuven > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: > >> I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the following >> refactor in my own code from: >> >> return input >> .apply(TextIO.read().from(fileSpec)); >> >> to: >> >> return input >> .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) >> .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) >> .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); >> >> Yes, the latter is more verbose but not ridiculously so, and it's also >> more instructive about what's happening. >> >> When I first started working with Beam, it took me a while to realize >> that TextIO.read().from() would accept a wildcard. The more verbose version >> involves a method called "filepattern" which makes this much more obvious. >> It also leads me to understand that I could use the same FileIO.match() >> machinery to do other things with filesystems other than read file >> contents. >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a >>> `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of >>> file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is >>> implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and >>> then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. >>> TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the >>> Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match >>> + ReadFiles. >>> >>> Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more >>> composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. >>> >>> Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely >>> user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds >>> more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a >>> more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it >>> makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` >>> of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like >>> the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. >>> >>> So the question is should we: >>> >>> [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and >>> assume the (minor) maintenance cost >>> >>> or >>> >>> [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use >>> FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). >>> >>> I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if >>> the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to >>> see what the python guys think on this too. >>> >>> This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz >>> Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO >>> signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences? >>> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Jeff, what you did here is not simply a refactoring. These two are quite different, and will likely have different performance characteristics. The first evaluates the wildcard, and allows the runner to pick appropriate bundling. Bundles might contain multiple files (if they are small), and the runner can split the files as appropriate. In the case of the Dataflow runner, these bundles can be further split dynamically. The second chops of the files inside the the PTransform, and processes each chunk in a ParDo. TextIO.readFiles currently chops up each file into 64mb chunks (hardcoded), and then processes each chunk in a ParDo. Reuven On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jeff Klukas wrote: > I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the following > refactor in my own code from: > > return input > .apply(TextIO.read().from(fileSpec)); > > to: > > return input > .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) > .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) > .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); > > Yes, the latter is more verbose but not ridiculously so, and it's also > more instructive about what's happening. > > When I first started working with Beam, it took me a while to realize that > TextIO.read().from() would accept a wildcard. The more verbose version > involves a method called "filepattern" which makes this much more obvious. > It also leads me to understand that I could use the same FileIO.match() > machinery to do other things with filesystems other than read file > contents. > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a >> `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of >> file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is >> implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and >> then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. >> TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the >> Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match >> + ReadFiles. >> >> Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more >> composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. >> >> Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely >> user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds >> more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a >> more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it >> makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` >> of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like >> the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. >> >> So the question is should we: >> >> [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and >> assume the (minor) maintenance cost >> >> or >> >> [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use >> FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). >> >> I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if >> the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to >> see what the python guys think on this too. >> >> This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz >> Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO >> signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences? >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
I would prefer we move towards option [2]. I just tried the following refactor in my own code from: return input .apply(TextIO.read().from(fileSpec)); to: return input .apply(FileIO.match().filepattern(fileSpec)) .apply(FileIO.readMatches()) .apply(TextIO.readFiles()); Yes, the latter is more verbose but not ridiculously so, and it's also more instructive about what's happening. When I first started working with Beam, it took me a while to realize that TextIO.read().from() would accept a wildcard. The more verbose version involves a method called "filepattern" which makes this much more obvious. It also leads me to understand that I could use the same FileIO.match() machinery to do other things with filesystems other than read file contents. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Hello, > > A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a > `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of > file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is > implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and > then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. > TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the > Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match > + ReadFiles. > > Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more > composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. > > Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely > user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds > more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a > more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it > makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` > of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like > the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. > > So the question is should we: > > [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and > assume the (minor) maintenance cost > > or > > [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use > FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). > > I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if > the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to > see what the python guys think on this too. > > This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz > Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO > signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences? >
[DISCUSS] Should File based IOs implement readAll() or just readFiles()
Hello, A ‘recent’ pattern of use in Beam is to have in file based IOs a `readAll()` implementation that basically matches a `PCollection` of file patterns and reads them, e.g. `TextIO`, `AvroIO`. `ReadAll` is implemented by a expand function that matches files with FileIO and then reads them using a format specific `ReadFiles` transform e.g. TextIO.ReadFiles, AvroIO.ReadFiles. So in the end `ReadAll` in the Java implementation is just an user friendly API to hide FileIO.match + ReadFiles. Most recent IOs do NOT implement ReadAll to encourage the more composable approach of File + ReadFiles, e.g. XmlIO and ParquetIO. Implementing ReadAll as a wrapper is relatively easy and is definitely user friendly, but it has an issue, it may be error-prone and it adds more code to maintain (mostly ‘repeated’ code). However `readAll` is a more abstract pattern that applies not only to File based IOs so it makes sense for example in other transforms that map a `Pcollection` of read requests and is the basis for SDF composable style APIs like the recent `HBaseIO.readAll()`. So the question is should we: [1] Implement `readAll` in all file based IOs to be user friendly and assume the (minor) maintenance cost or [2] Deprecate `readAll` from file based IOs and encourage users to use FileIO + `readFiles` (less maintenance and encourage composition). I just checked quickly in the python code base but I did not find if the File match + ReadFiles pattern applies, but it would be nice to see what the python guys think on this too. This discussion comes from a recent slack conversation with Łukasz Gajowy, and we wanted to settle into one approach to make the IO signatures consistent, so any opinions/preferences?
