I think the first question that has to be answered here is: Is it possible *at all* to implement parallel reading of RFC 4180?I.e., given a start byte offset, is it possible to reliably locate the first record boundary at or after that offset while scanning only a small amount of data?If it is possible, then that's what the SDF (or BoundedSource, etc.) should do - split into blind byte ranges, and use this algorithm to assign consistent meaning to byte ranges.To answer your questions 2 and 3: think of it this way.The SDF's ProcessElement takes an element and a restriction.ProcessElement must make only one promise: that it will correctly perform exactly the work associated with this element and restriction.The challenge is that the restriction can become smaller while ProcessElement runs - in which case, ProcessElement must also do fewer work. This can happen concurrently to ProcessElement running, so really the guarantee should be rephrased as "By the time ProcessElement completes, it should have performed exactly the work associated with the element and tracker.currentRestriction() at the moment of completion".This is all that is asked of ProcessElement. If Beam decides to ask the tracker to split itself into two ranges (making the current one - "primary" - smaller, and producing an additional one - "residual"), Beam of course takes the responsibility for executing the residual restriction somewhere else: it won't be lost.E.g. if ProcessElement was invoked with [a, b), but while it was invoked it was split into [a, b-100) and [b-100, b), then the current ProcessElement call must process [a, b-100), and Beam guarantees that it will fire up another ProcessElement call for [b-100, b) (Of course, both of these calls may end up being recursively split further).I'm not quite sure what you mean by "recombining" - please let me know if the explanation above makes things clear enough or not.On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:55 PM Peter Brumblay <pbrumblay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Eugene, thank you for the feedback!TextIO.read() can't handle RFC 4180 in full (at least I don't think it does!) - we have a lot of source data with embedded newlines. These records get split improperly because TextIO.read() blindly looks for newline characters. We need something which natively understands embedded newlines in quoted fields ... like so:foo,bar,"this has an\r\nembedded newline",192928\r\nAs for the other feedback:1. Claiming the entire range - yes, I figured this was a major mistake. Thanks for the confirmation.2. The code for initial splitting of the restriction seems very complex...Follow-up question: if I process (and claim) only a subset of a range, say [a, b - 100), and [b - 100, b) represents an incomplete block, will beam SDF dynamically recombine ranges such that [b - 100, b + N) is sent to a worker with a (potentially) complete block?3. Fine-tuning the evenness .... if beam SDF re-combines ranges for split blocks then it sounds like arbitrary splits in splitFunction() makes more sense.I'll try to take another pass at this with your feedback in mind.PeterOn Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Eugene Kirpichov <kirpichov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Peter,Thanks for experimenting with SDF! However, in this particular case: any reason why you can't just use TextIO.read() and parse each line as CSV? Seems like that would require considerably less code.A few comments on this code per se:- The ProcessElement implementation immediately claims the entire range, which means that there can be no dynamic splitting and the code behaves equivalently to a regular DoFn- The code for initial splitting of the restriction seems very complex - can you just split it blindly into a bunch of byte ranges of about equal size? Looking at the actual data while splitting should be never necessary - you should be able to just look at the file size (say, 100MB) and split it into a bunch of splits, say, [0, 10MB), [10MB, 20MB) etc.- It seems that the splitting code tries to align splits with record boundaries - this is not useful: it does not matter whether the split boundaries fall onto record boundaries or not; instead, the reading code should be able to read an arbitrary range of bytes in a meaningful way. That typically means that reading [a, b) means "start at the first record boundary located at or after "a", end at the first record boundary located at or after "b""- Fine-tuning the evenness of initial splitting is also not useful: dynamic splitting will even things out anyway; moreover, even if you are able to achieve an equal amount of data read by different restrictions, it does not translate into equal time to process the data with the ParDo's fused into the same bundle (and that time is unpredictable).On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:24 PM Peter Brumblay <pbrumblay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi All,I noticed that there is no support for CSV file reading (e.g. rfc4180) in Apache Beam - at least no native transform. There's an issue to add this support: https://issues.
apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-51 .I've seen examples which use the apache commons csv parser. I took a shot at implementing a SplittableDoFn transform. I have the full code and some questions in a gist here: https://gist.github.com/ pbrumblay/. 9474dcc6cd238c3f1d26d869a20e86 3dI suspect it could be improved quite a bit. If anyone has time to provide feedback I would really appreciate it.Regards,Peter BrumblayFearless Technology Group, Inc.
|( ! ) Warning: include(msgfooter.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/git/apache-beam-users/msg02167.html on line 73|
|( ! ) Warning: include(): Failed opening 'msgfooter.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/var/www/git') in /var/www/git/apache-beam-users/msg02167.html on line 73|