Ken Krugler 2010-04-15, 17:33
Scott Carey 2010-04-16, 18:04
Thanks for the response. See below for my comments...
>> We're looking at creating a Cascading Scheme for Avro, and have got a
>> few questions below. These are very general, as this is more of a
>> scoping phase (as in, are we crazy to try this) so apologies in
>> advance for lack of detail.
>> For context, Cascading is an open source project that provides a
>> workflow API on top of Hadoop. The key unit of data is a tuple, which
>> corresponds to a record - you have fields (names) and values.
>> Cascading uses a generalized "tap" concept for reading & writing
>> tuples, where a tap uses a scheme to handle the low-level mapping
>> Cascading-land to/from the storage format.
> I am somewhat familiar with Cascading as a user. I am not familiar
> with how it is implemented or how to customize things like a Tap or
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but its notion of a record is very simple
> -- there are no arrays or maps -- just a list of fields.
> This maps to avro easily.
Correct - currently Cascading doesn't have built-in support for
arrays, maps or unions - though I believe arrays & maps are on the list.
>> So the goal here is to define a Cascading Scheme that will run on
>> 0.18.3 and later versions of Hadoop, and provide general support for
>> reading/writing tuples from/to an Avro-format Hadoop part-xxxxx file.
>> We grabbed the recently committed AvroXXX code from
>> org.apache.avro.mapred (thanks Doug & Scott), and began building the
>> Cascading scheme to bridge between AvroWrapper<T> keys and Cascading
> You might be fine without the org.apache.avro.mapred stuff --
> specifically if you only need the sinks and taps to use Avro and not
> the stuff in between a map and reduce. For example, I have a custom
> LoadFunc in Pig that can read/write avro data files working off Avro
> 1.3.0 -- but it works for a static schema.
>> 1. What's the best approach if we want to dynamically define the Avro
>> schema, based on a list of field names and types (classes)?
> Creating an Avro schema programmatically is fairly straightforward
> -- especially without arrays, maps, or unions. If the code has
> access to the Cascading record definition, transforming that into an
> Avro schema dynamically should be straightforward. Schema has
> various constructors and static methods from which you can get the
> JSON schema representation or just pass around Schema objects.
We're currently using the string rep, since a Schema isn't
serializable, and Cascading needs that to save the defined workflow in
the job conf.
>> 3. Will there be issues with running in 0.18.3, 0.19.2, etc?
>> I saw some discussion about Hadoop using the older Jackson 1.0.1 jar,
>> and that then creating problems. Anything else?
> I'm using Avro 1.3.0 with 0.19.2 and 0.20.1 CDH2 in production and
> the only problem was the above library conflict. This is without
> the new o.a.avro.mapred stuff however.
Great, good to know.
>> 4. The key integration point, besides the fields+classes to schema
>> issue above, is mapping between Cascading tuples and AvroWrapper<T>
>> If we're using (I assume) the generic format, any input on how we'd
>> this two-way conversion?
> I'd suggest thinking about using Avro container files for input and
> output, which may not require the above depending on how Cascading
> is built internally. In Pig for example, the LoadFunc defines a pig
> schema on input for reading, and everything else from there requires
> no change -- although this means that it is using the default pig
> types and serialization for all the intermediate work, reading and
> writing inputs and outputs can be done with Avro with minimal effort.
> Cascading is already defining the M/R jobs, the keys, values, etc...
> so you may only have to modify the Tap to translate from an Avro
> schema to the Cascading record to get it to read or write an Avro
So far one issue is that we need to translate between Cascading
Strings and Avro Utf8 types, but most everything else works just fine.
It's pretty much four routines in the scheme:
- sinkInit (setting up the conf properly, for which we're using the
- sourceInit (same thing)
- sink (mapping from Tuple to o.a.avro.Generic.GenericData)
- source (mapping from o.a.avro.Generic.GenericData to Tuple)
The above is all based on the Avro mapred support, so we just have to
do the translation work for Fields <-> Schema and Tuple <-> GenericData.
It looks pretty doable, thanks for the help!
e l a s t i c w e b m i n i n g
Scott Carey 2010-04-16, 18:28
Ken Krugler 2010-04-18, 14:49
Doug Cutting 2010-04-21, 22:22
Ken Krugler 2010-04-23, 04:40
Doug Cutting 2010-04-23, 19:33
Ken Krugler 2010-04-26, 19:59