I don't think there is an efficient method to do this yet. But the easy way is using filter()
, lets say you have an RDD, pairs
with key value pairs and you only want elements from 60 to 80 inclusive just do.
val 60to80 = pairs.filter {
_ match {
case (k,v) => k >= 60 && k <= 80
case _ => false //incase of invalid input
}
}
I think it's possible that this could be done more efficiently in the future, by using sortByKey
and saving information about the range of values mapped to each partition. Keep in mind this approach would only save anything if you were planning to query the range multiple times because the sort is obviously expensive.
From looking at the spark source it would definitely be possible to do efficient range queries using RangePartitioner
:
// An array of upper bounds for the first (partitions - 1) partitions
private val rangeBounds: Array[K] = {
This is a private member of RangePartitioner
with the knowledge of all the upper bounds of the partitions, it would be easy to only query the necessary partitions. It looks like this is something spark users may see in the future: SPARK-911
UPDATE: Way better answer, based on pull request I'm writing for SPARK-911. It will run efficiently if the RDD is sorted and you query it multiple times.
val sorted = sc.parallelize((1 to 100).map(x => (x, x))).sortByKey().cache()
val p: RangePartitioner[Int, Int] = sorted.partitioner.get.asInstanceOf[RangePartitioner[Int, Int]];
val (lower, upper) = (10, 20)
val range = p.getPartition(lower) to p.getPartition(upper)
println(range)
val rangeFilter = (i: Int, iter: Iterator[(Int, Int)]) => {
if (range.contains(i))
for ((k, v) <- iter if k >= lower && k <= upper) yield (k, v)
else
Iterator.empty
}
for((k,v) <- sorted.mapPartitionsWithIndex(rangeFilter, preservesPartitioning = true).collect()) println(s"$k, $v")
If having the whole partition in memory is acceptable you could even do something like this.
val glommedAndCached = sorted.glom()cache();
glommedAndCached.map(a => a.slice(a.search(lower),a.search(upper)+1)).collect()
search
is not a member BTW I just made an implicit class that has a binary search function, not shown here
ROW_NUMBER()
orRANK()
to your dataset and thenSELECT
the desired rows. For a small RDD this is overkill, but this approach should work efficiently for very large RDDs. – Nick Chammas