My spark application is using RDD's of numpy arrays.
At the moment, I'm reading my data from AWS S3, and its represented as
a simple text file where each line is a vector and each element is seperated by space, for example:
1 2 3
5.1 3.6 2.1
3 0.24 1.333
I'm using numpy's function loadtxt() in order to create a numpy array from it.
However, this method seems to be very slow and my app is spending too much time(I think) for converting my dataset to a numpy array.
Can you suggest me a better way for doing it? For example, should I keep my dataset as a binary file?,
should I create the RDD in another way?
Some code for how I create my RDD:
data = sc.textFile("s3_url", initial_num_of_partitions).mapPartitions(readData)
readData function:
def readPointBatch(iterator):
return [(np.loadtxt(iterator,dtype=np.float64)]
It would be a little bit more idiomatic and slightly faster to simply map with numpy.fromstring as follows:
import numpy as np.
path = ...
initial_num_of_partitions = ...
data = (sc.textFile(path, initial_num_of_partitions)
.map(lambda s: np.fromstring(s, dtype=np.float64, sep=" ")))
but ignoring that there is nothing particularly wrong with your approach. As far as I can tell, with basic configuration, it is roughly twice a slow a simply reading the data and slightly slower than creating dummy numpy arrays.
So it looks like the problem is somewhere else. It could be cluster misconfiguration, cost of fetching data from S3 or even unrealistic expectations.
You shouldn't use numpy while working with Spark. Spark has its own methodology of processing data assuring that your sometimes really big files aren't loaded into memory at once, exceeding the memory limit. You should load your file like this with Spark:
data = sc.textFile("s3_url", initial_num_of_partitions) \
.map(lambda row: map(lambda x: float(x), row.split(' ')))
Now this will output an RDD like this, based on your example:
>>> print(data.collect())
[[1.0, 2.0, 3.0], [5.1, 3.6, 2.1], [3.0, 0.24, 1.333]]
#edit Some suggestions on file formats and numpy usage:
Text files are just as good as CSV, TSV, Parquet or anything you feel comfortable with. Binary files are not preferred, according to the Spark docs on binary files loading:
binaryFiles(path, minPartitions=None)
Note: Experimental
Read a directory of binary files from HDFS, a local file system (available on all nodes), or any Hadoop-supported file system URI as a byte array. Each file is read as a single record and returned in a key-value pair, where the key is the path of each file, the value is the content of each file.
Note: Small files are preferred, large file is also allowable, but may cause bad performance.
As for numpy usage, if I were you I'd deffinitely tried to replace any external package with native Spark, for example pyspark.mlib.random for randomization: http://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/api/python/pyspark.mllib.html#module-pyspark.mllib.random
The best thing to do under these circumstances is to use pandas library for io.
Please refer to this question : pandas read_csv() and python iterator as input
.
There you will see how to replace the np.loadtxt() function so it would be much faster to create a RDD of numpy array.
Related
How to convert a .csv file to .npy efficently?
I've tried:
import numpy as np
filename = "myfile.csv"
vec =np.loadtxt(filename, delimiter=",")
np.save(f"{filename}.npy", vec)
While the above works for smallish file, the actual .csv file I'm working on has ~12 million lines with 1024 columns, it takes quite a lot to load everything into RAM before converting into an .npy format.
Q (Part 1): Is there some way to load/convert a .csv to .npy efficiently for large CSV file?
The above code snippet is similar to the answer from Convert CSV to numpy but that won't work for ~12M x 1024 matrix.
Q (Part 2): If there isn't any way to to load/convert a .csv to .npy efficiently, is there some way to iteratively read the .csv file into .npy efficiently?
Also, there's an answer here https://stackoverflow.com/a/53558856/610569 to save the csv file as numpy array iteratively. But seems like the np.vstack isn't the best solution when reading the file. The accepted answer there suggests hdf5 but the format is not the main objective of this question and the hdf5 format isn't desired in my use-case since I've to read it back into a numpy array afterwards.
Q (Part 3): If part 1 and part2 are not possible, are there other efficient storage (e.g. tensorstore) that can store and efficiently convert to numpy array when loading the saved storage format?
There is another library tensorstore that seems to efficiently handles arrays which support conversion to numpy array when read, https://google.github.io/tensorstore/python/tutorial.html. But somehow there isn't any information on how to save the tensor/array without the exact dimensions, all of the examples seem to include configurations like 'dimensions': [1000, 20000],.
Unlike the HDF5, the tensorstore doesn't seem to have reading overhead issues when converting to numpy, from docs:
Conversion to an numpy.ndarray also implicitly performs a synchronous read (which hits the in-memory cache since the same region was just retrieved)
Nice question; Informative in itself.
I understand you want to have the whole data set/array in memory, eventually, as a NumPy array. I assume, then, you have enough (RAM) memory to host such array -- 12M x 1K.
I don't specifically know about how np.loadtxt (genfromtxt) is operating behind the scenes, so I will tell you how I would do (after trying like you did).
Reasoning about memory...
Notice that a simple boolean array will cost ~12 GBytes of memory:
>>> print("{:.1E} bytes".format(
np.array([True]).itemsize * 12E6 * 1024
))
1.2E+10 bytes
And this is for a Boolean data type. Most likely, you have -- what -- a dataset of Integer, Float? The size may increase quite significantly:
>>> np.array([1], dtype=bool).itemsize
1
>>> np.array([1], dtype=int).itemsize
8
>>> np.array([1], dtype=float).itemsize
8
It's a lot of memory (which you know, just want to emphasize).
At this point, I would like to point out a possible swapping of the working memory. You may have enough physical (RAM) memory in your machine, but if not enough of free memory, your system will use the swap memory (i.e, disk) to keep your system stable & have the work done. The cost you pay is clear: read/writing from/to the disk is very slow.
My point so far is: check the data type of your dataset, estimate the size of your future array, and guarantee you have that minimum amount of RAM memory available.
I/O text
Considering you do have all the (RAM) memory necessary to host the whole numpy array: I would then loop over the whole (~12M lines) text file, filling the pre-existing array row-by-row.
More precisely, I would have the (big) array already instantiated before start reading the file. Only then, I would read each line, split the columns, and give it to np.asarray and assign those (1024) values to each respective row of the output array.
The looping over the file is slow, yes. The thing here is that you limit (and control) the amount of memory being used. Roughly speaking, the big objects consuming your memory are the "output" (big) array, and the "line" (1024) array. Sure, there are quite a considerable amount of memory being consumed in each loop in the temporary objects during reading (text!) values, splitting into list elements and casting to an array. Still, it's something that will remain largely constant during the whole ~12M lines.
So, the steps I would go through are:
0) estimate and guarantee enough RAM memory available
1) instantiate (np.empty or np.zeros) the "output" array
2) loop over "input.txt" file, create a 1D array from each line "i"
3) assign the line values/array to row "i" of "output" array
Sure enough, you can even make it parallel: If on one hand text files cannot be randomly (r/w) accessed, on the other hand you can easily split them (see How can I split one text file into multiple *.txt files?) to have -- if fun is at the table -- them read in parallel, if that time if critical.
Hope that helps.
TL;DR
Export to a different function other than .npy seems inevitable unless your machine is able to handle the size of the data in-memory as per described in #Brandt answer.
Reading the data, then processing it (Kinda answering Q part 2)
To handle data size larger than what the RAM can handle, one would often resort to libraries that performs "out-of-core" computation, e.g. turicreate.SFrame, vaex or dask . These libraries would be able to lazily load the .csv files into dataframes and process them by chunks when evaluated.
from turicreate import SFrame
filename = "myfile.csv"
sf = SFrame.read_csv(filename)
sf.apply(...) # Trying to process the data
or
import vaex
filename = "myfile.csv"
df = vaex.from_csv(filename,
convert=True,
chunk_size=50_000_000)
df.apply(...)
Converting the read data into numpy array (kinda answering Q part 1)
While out-of-core libraries can read and process the data efficiently, converting into numpy is an "in-memory" operation, the machine needs to have enough RAM to fit all data.
The turicreate.SFrame.to_numpy documentation writes:
Converts this SFrame to a numpy array
This operation will construct a numpy array in memory. Care must be taken when size of the returned object is big.
And the vaex documentation writes:
In-memory data representations
One can construct a Vaex DataFrame from a variety of in-memory data representations.
And dask best practices actually reimplemented their own array objects that are simpler than numpy array, see https://docs.dask.org/en/stable/array-best-practices.html. But when going through the docs, it seems like the format they have saved the dask array in are not .npy but various other formats.
Writing the file into non-.npy versions (answering Q Part 3)
Given the numpy arrays are inevitably in-memory, trying to save the data into one single .npy isn't the most viable option.
Different libraries seems to have different solutions for storage. E.g.
vaex saves the data into hdf5 by default if the convert=True argument is set when data is read through vaex.from_csv()
sframe saves the data into their own binary format
dask export functions save to_hdf() and to_parquet() format
It it's latest version (4.14) vaex support "streaming", i.e. lazy loading of CSV files. It uses pyarrow under the hood so it is supper fast. Try something like
df = vaex.open(my_file.csv)
# or
df = vaex.from_csv_arrow(my_file.csv, lazy=True)
Then you can export to bunch of formats as needed, or keep working with it like that (it is surprisingly fast). Of course, it is better to convert to some kind of binary format..
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
# Define the input and output file names
csv_file = 'data.csv'
npy_file = 'data.npy'
# Create dummy data
data = np.random.rand(10000, 100)
df = pd.DataFrame(data)
df.to_csv(csv_file, index=False)
# Define the chunk size
chunk_size = 1000
# Read the header row and get the number of columns
header = pd.read_csv(csv_file, nrows=0)
num_cols = len(header.columns)
# Initialize an empty array to store the data
data = np.empty((0, num_cols))
# Loop over the chunks of the csv file
for chunk in pd.read_csv(csv_file, chunksize=chunk_size):
# Convert the chunk to a numpy array
chunk_array = chunk.to_numpy()
# Append the chunk to the data array
data = np.append(data, chunk_array, axis=0)
np.save(npy_file, data)
# Load the npy file and check the shape
npy_data = np.load(npy_file)
print('Shape of data before conversion:', data.shape)
print('Shape of data after conversion:', npy_data.shape)```
I'm not aware of any existing function or utility that directly and efficiently converts csv files into npy files. With efficient I guess primarily meaning with low memory requirements.
Writing a npy file iteratively is indeed possible, with some extra effort. There's already a question on SO that addresses this, see:
save numpy array in append mode
For example using the NpyAppendArray class from Michael's answer you can do:
with open('data.csv') as csv, NpyAppendArray('data.npy') as npy:
for line in csv:
row = np.fromstring(line, sep=',')
npy.append(row[np.newaxis, :])
The NpyAppendArray class updates the npy file header on every call to append, which is a bit much for your 12M rows. Maybe you could update the class to (optionally) only write the header on close. Or you could easily batch the writes:
batch_lines = 128
with open('data.csv') as csv, NpyAppendArray('data.npy') as npy:
done = False
while not done:
batch = []
for count, line in enumerate(csv):
row = np.fromstring(line, sep=',')
batch.append(row)
if count + 1 >= batch_lines:
break
else:
done = True
npy.append(np.array(batch))
(code is not tested)
I have a 3 column CSV file where I perform a simple calculation with python and pandas.
The file is very large, just under 4Gb, after the calculation about 1.9Gb
the CSV file is:
data1,data2,data3
aftqgdjqv0av3q56jvd82tkdjpy7gdp9ut8tlqmgrpmv24sq90ecnvqqjwvw97,856521536521321,112535
aftqgdjqv0av3q56jvd82tkdjpy7gdp9ut8tlqmgrpmv24sq90ecnvqqjwvw98,6521321,112138
aftqgdjqv0av3q56jvd82tkdjpy7gdp9ut8tlqmgrpmv24sq90ecnvqqjwvw98,856521536521321,122135
aftqgdjqv0av3q56jvd82tkdjpy7gdp9ut8tlqmgrpmv24sq90ecnvqqjwvw99,521321,112132
aftqgdjqv0av3q56jvd82tkdjpy7gdp9ut8tlqmgrpmv24sq90ecnvqqjwvw99,856521536521321,212135
The calculation is a trivial sum. If column A is identical, then add B and rewrite the CSV.
Example result :
data1,data2,data3
aftqgdjqv0av3q56jvd82tkdjpy7gdp9ut8tlqmgrpmv24sq90ecnvqqjwvw97,856521536521321
aftqgdjqv0av3q56jvd82tkdjpy7gdp9ut8tlqmgrpmv24sq90ecnvqqjwvw98,856521543042642
aftqgdjqv0av3q56jvd82tkdjpy7gdp9ut8tlqmgrpmv24sq90ecnvqqjwvw99,856521537042642
import pandas as pd
#Read csv
df = pd.read_csv('data.csv', sep=',' , engine='python')
# Groupby and sum
df_new = df.groupby(["data1"]).agg({"data2": "sum"}).reset_index()
# Save in new file
df_new.to_csv('data2.csv', encoding='utf-8', index=False)
How could I improve the code to speed up execution?
It currently takes about 7 hours on a vps to complete the calculation
add info
The RAM resources are almost always 100% (8Gb), while the choice of the engine = 'python' is because I used a code already present on https://stackoverflow.com/, and honestly I don't know the usefulness or not of that command, but I have seen that the calculation works correctly.
Data3 is actually useless to me (right now, probably useful in the future).
There's an alternative option - use convtools for this. It is a pure python library which generates pure python code to build ad hoc converters. Of course bare python cannot beat pandas in terms of speed, but at least it doesn't need any wrappers and it works just like you'd implement everything by hand.
So, normally the following would work for you:
from convtools import conversion as c
from convtools.contrib.tables import Table
# you can store the converter somewhere for further reuse
converter = (
c.group_by(c.item("data1"))
.aggregate({
"data1": c.item("data1"),
"data2": c.ReduceFuncs.Sum(c.item("data2"))
})
.gen_converter()
)
# this is an iterable (stream of rows), not the list
rows = Table.from_csv("tmp4.csv", header=True).into_iter_rows(dict)
Table.from_rows(converter(rows)).into_csv("out.csv")
JFYI: If you run the script manually, then you can monitor the speed using e.g. tqdm, just wrap an iterable you are consuming with it:
from tqdm import tqdm
# same code as above, except for the last line:
Table.from_rows(converter(tqdm(rows))).into_csv("out.csv")
HOWEVER:
the solution above doesn't require an input file to fit into memory, but the result should. In your case, if the result is 1.9GB csv file, it is unlikely to fit corresponding python objects into 8GB of RAM.
Then you may need to:
remove the header: tail -n +2 raw_file.csv > raw_file_no_header.csv
pre-sort the file sort raw_file_no_header.csv > sorted_file.csv
a then:
from convtools import conversion as c
from convtools.contrib.tables import Table
converter = (
c.chunk_by(c.item("data1"))
.aggregate(
{
"data1": c.ReduceFuncs.First(c.item("data1")),
"data2": c.ReduceFuncs.Sum(c.item("data2")),
}
)
.gen_converter()
)
rows = Table.from_csv("sorted_file.csv", header=True).into_iter_rows(dict)
Table.from_rows(converter(rows)).into_csv("out.csv")
This only requires a single group to fit into memory.
Remove the engine='python', it does no good.
Get more RAM, 8GB is not enough, you should never hit 100% (this is what slows you down)
(it is too late now), but don't use .csv files for large datasets. Look into feather or parquet.
If you can't get more RAM, then maybe #Afaq will elaborate on the file splitting approach. The problem I see there, is that you are not reducing your dataset much, so map reduce may choke on the reduce part, unless you split your file in such a way, that same data1 strings would always go into the same file.
I want to store multiple GeoTiff files in one HDF5 file to use it for further analysis since the function I am supposed to use can just deal with HDF5 (so basically like a raster stack in R but stored in a HDF5). I have to use Python. I am relatively new to HDF5 format (and geoanalysis in Python generally) and don't really know how to approach this issue. Especially keeping the geolocation/projection inforation seems tricky to me. So far I tried:
import h5py
import rasterio
r1 = rasterio.open("filename.tif")
r2 = rasterio.open("filename2.tif")
with h5py.File('path/test.h5', 'w') as hdf:
hdf.create_dataset('GeoTiff1', data=r1)
hdf.create_dataset('GeoTiff2', data=r2)
Yielding the following errror:
TypeError: Object dtype dtype('O') has no native HDF5 equivalent
I am pretty sure this not at all the correct approach and I'm happy about any suggestions.
What you can try is to do this:
import numpy as np
spec_dtype = h5py.special_dtype(vlen=np.dtype('float64'))
Just make a spec_dtype variable with float64 type then apply this to create_dataset:
with h5py.File('path/test.h5', 'w') as hdf:
hdf.create_dataset('GeoTiff1', data=r1,, dtype=spec_dtype)
hdf.create_dataset('GeoTiff2', data=r2,, dtype=spec_dtype)
Apply these and hopefully it will work.
Using HDFql in Python, your use-case could be solved as follows:
import HDFql
HDFql.execute("SHOW FILE SIZE filename.tif, filename2.tif")
HDFql.cursor_next()
HDFql.execute("CREATE DATASET path/test.h5 GeoTiff1 AS OPAQUE(%d) VALUES FROM BINARY FILE filename.tif" % HDFql.cursor_get_bigint())
HDFql.cursor_next()
HDFql.execute("CREATE DATASET path/test.h5 GeoTiff2 AS OPAQUE(%d) VALUES FROM BINARY FILE filename2.tif" % HDFql.cursor_get_bigint())
My data are available as sets of Python 3 pickled files. Most of them are serialization of Pandas DataFrames.
I'd like to start using Spark because I need more memory and CPU that one computer can have. Also, I'll use HDFS for distributed storage.
As a beginner, I didn't found relevant information explaining how to use pickle files as input file.
Does it exists? If not, are there any workaround?
Thanks a lot
A lot depends on the data itself. Generally speaking Spark doesn't perform particularly well when it has to read large, not splittable files. Nevertheless you can try to use binaryFiles method and combine it with the standard Python tools. Lets start with a dummy data:
import tempfile
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
outdir = tempfile.mkdtemp()
for i in range(5):
pd.DataFrame(
np.random.randn(10, 2), columns=['foo', 'bar']
).to_pickle(tempfile.mkstemp(dir=outdir)[1])
Next we can read it using bianryFiles method:
rdd = sc.binaryFiles(outdir)
and deserialize individual objects:
import pickle
from io import BytesIO
dfs = rdd.values().map(lambda p: pickle.load(BytesIO(p)))
dfs.first()[:3]
## foo bar
## 0 -0.162584 -2.179106
## 1 0.269399 -0.433037
## 2 -0.295244 0.119195
One important note is that it typically requires significantly more memory than a simple methods like textFile.
Another approach is to parallelize only the paths and use libraries which can read directly from a distributed file system like hdfs3. This typically means lower memory requirements at the price of a significantly worse data locality.
Considering these two facts it is typically better to serialize your data in a format which can be loaded with a higher granularity.
Note:
SparkContext provides pickleFile method, but the name can be misleading. It can be used to read SequenceFiles containing pickle objects not the plain Python pickles.
I'm wondering if anyone knows a Python package that allows you to save numpy arrays/recarrays in the .dta format of the statistical data analysis software Stata. This would really speed up a few steps in a system I have.
The scikits.statsmodels package includes a reader for Stata data files, which relies in part on PyDTA as pointed out by #Sven. In particular, genfromdta() will return an ndarray, e.g.
from Python 2.7/statsmodels 0.3.1:
>>> import scikits.statsmodels.api as sm
>>> arr = sm.iolib.genfromdta('/Applications/Stata12/auto.dta')
>>> type(arr)
<type 'numpy.ndarray'>
The savetxt() function can be used in turn to save an array as a text file, which can be imported in Stata. For example, we can export the above as
>>> sm.iolib.savetxt('auto.txt', arr, fmt='%2s', delimiter=",")
and read it in Stata without a dictionary file as follows:
. insheet using auto.txt, clear
I believe a *.dta reader should be added in the near future.
The only Python library for STATA interoperability I could find merely provides read-only access to .dta files. The R foreign library however provides a function write.dta, and RPy provides a Python interface to R. Maybe the combination of these tools can help you.
pandas DataFrame objects now have a "to_stata" method. So you can do for instance
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_stata('my_data_in.dta')
df.to_stata('my_data_out.dta')
DISCLAIMER: the first step is quite slow (in my test, around 1 minute for reading a 51 MB dta - also see this question), and the second produces a file which can be way larger than the original one (in my test, the size goes from 51 MB to 111MB). This answer may look less elegant, but it is probably more efficient.