Speed Up Your Data Processing: Parallel and Asynchronous Programming in Data Science

Event: PyCon Taiwan 2020
Date: 6 September 2020
Location: NCKU / Remote

Constantly waiting for your data processing code to finish executing? Through real-life stories, we will explore how to leverage on parallel and asynchronous programming in Python to speed up your data processing pipelines - so that you could focus more on getting value out of your data. While this talk assumes a basic understanding of processes in data pipelines and data science workflows, anyone with a basic understanding of the Python language would be able to understand the concepts and use cases illustrated with analogies.

Transcript

1. Speed Up Your Data Processing Parallel and Asynchronous Programming in Data Science By: Chin Hwee Ong (@ongchinhwee) PyCon Taiwan 2020 6 September 2020
2. About me Ong Chin Hwee 王敬惠 • Data Engineer @ ST Engineering • Background in aerospace engineering + computational modelling • Contributor to pandas • Mentor team at BigDataX @ongchinhwee
3. A typical data science workflow 1. Extract raw data 2. Process data 3. Train model 4. Evaluate and deploy model @ongchinhwee
4. Bottlenecks in a data science project • Lack of data / Poor quality data • Data processing ◦ The 80/20 data science dilemma ▪ In reality, it’s closer to 90/10 @ongchinhwee
5. Data Processing in Python • For loops in Python ◦ Run on the interpreter, not compiled ◦ Slow compared with C a_list = [] for i in range(100): a_list.append(i*i) @ongchinhwee
6. Data Processing in Python • List comprehensions ◦ Slightly faster than for loops ◦ No need to call append function at each iteration a_list = [i*i for i in range(100)] @ongchinhwee
7. Challenges with Data Processing • Pandas ◦ Optimized for in-memory analytics using DataFrames ◦ Performance + out-of-memory issues when dealing with large datasets (> 1 GB) @ongchinhwee import pandas as pd import numpy as np df = pd.DataFrame(list(range(100))) squared_df = df.apply(np.square)
8. Challenges with Data Processing • “Why not just use a Spark cluster?” Communication overhead: Distributed computing involves communicating between (independent) machines across a network! “Small Big Data”(*): Data too big to fit in memory, but not large enough to justify using a Spark cluster. (*) Inspired by “The Small Big Data Manifesto”. Itamar Turner-Trauring (@itamarst) gave a great talk about Small Big Data at PyCon 2020. @ongchinhwee
9. What is parallel processing? @ongchinhwee
10. Let’s imagine I work at a kopi tiam (咖啡店). @ongchinhwee
11. @ongchinhwee
12. Task 1: Toast 100 slices of bread Assumptions: 1. I’m using single-slice toasters. (Yes, they actually exist.) 2. Each slice of toast takes 2 minutes to make. 3. No overhead time. Image taken from: https://www.mitsubishielectric.co.jp/home/breadoven/product/to-st1-t/feature/index.html @ongchinhwee
13. Sequential Processing = 25 bread slices @ongchinhwee
14. Sequential Processing Processor/Worker: Toaster = 25 bread slices @ongchinhwee
15. Sequential Processing Processor/Worker: Toaster = 25 bread slices = 25 toasts @ongchinhwee
16. Sequential Processing Execution Time = 100 toasts × 2 minutes/toast = 200 minutes @ongchinhwee
17. Parallel Processing = 25 bread slices @ongchinhwee
18. Parallel Processing @ongchinhwee
19. Parallel Processing Processor (Core): Toaster @ongchinhwee
20. Processor (Core): Toaster Task is executed using a pool of 4 toaster subprocesses. Each toasting subprocess runs in parallel and independently from each other. @ongchinhwee Parallel Processing
21. Parallel Processing Processor (Core): Toaster Output of each toasting process is consolidated and returned as an overall output (which may or may not be ordered). @ongchinhwee
22. Parallel Processing Execution Time = 100 toasts × 2 minutes/toast ÷ 4 toasters = 50 minutes Speedup = 4 times @ongchinhwee
23. Synchronous vs Asynchronous Execution @ongchinhwee
24. What do you mean by “Asynchronous”? @ongchinhwee
25. Task 2: Brew coffee Assumptions: 1. I can do other stuff while making coffee. 2. One coffee maker to make one cup of coffee. 3. Each cup of coffee takes 5 minutes to make. Image taken from: https://mothership.sg/2020/08/kopimatic-machine/ @ongchinhwee
26. Synchronous Execution Task 2: Brew a cup of coffee on coffee machine Duration: 5 minutes @ongchinhwee
27. Synchronous Execution Task 2: Brew a cup of coffee on coffee machine Duration: 5 minutes Task 1: Toast two slices of bread on single-slice toaster after Task 2 is completed Duration: 4 minutes @ongchinhwee
28. @ongchinhwee Synchronous Execution Task 2: Brew a cup of coffee on coffee machine Duration: 5 minutes Task 1: Toast two slices of bread on single-slice toaster after Task 2 is completed Duration: 4 minutes Output: 2 toasts + 1 coffee Total Execution Time = 5 minutes + 4 minutes = 9 minutes
29. Asynchronous Execution While brewing coffee: Make some toasts: @ongchinhwee
30. Asynchronous Execution Output: 2 toasts + 1 coffee Total Execution Time = 5 minutes @ongchinhwee
31. When is it a good idea to go for parallelism? (or, “Is it a good idea to simply buy a 256-core processor and parallelize all your codes?”) @ongchinhwee
32. Practical Considerations • Is your code already optimized? ◦ Sometimes, you might need to rethink your approach. ◦ Example: Use list comprehensions or map functions instead of for-loops for array iterations. @ongchinhwee
33. Practical Considerations • Is your code already optimized? • Problem architecture ◦ Nature of problem limits how successful parallelization can be. ◦ If your problem consists of processes which depend on each others’ outputs (Data dependency) and/or intermediate results (Task dependency), maybe not. @ongchinhwee
34. Practical Considerations • Is your code already optimized? • Problem architecture • Overhead in parallelism ◦ There will always be parts of the work that cannot be parallelized. → Amdahl’s Law ◦ Extra time required for coding and debugging (parallelism vs sequential code) → Increased complexity ◦ System overhead including communication overhead @ongchinhwee
35. Amdahl’s Law and Parallelism Amdahl’s Law states that the theoretical speedup is defined by the fraction of code p that can be parallelized: S: Theoretical speedup (theoretical latency) p: Fraction of the code that can be parallelized N: Number of processors (cores) @ongchinhwee
36. Amdahl’s Law and Parallelism If there are no parallel parts (p = 0): Speedup = 0 @ongchinhwee
37. Amdahl’s Law and Parallelism If there are no parallel parts (p = 0): Speedup = 0 If all parts are parallel (p = 1): Speedup = N → ∞ @ongchinhwee
38. Amdahl’s Law and Parallelism If there are no parallel parts (p = 0): Speedup = 0 If all parts are parallel (p = 1): Speedup = N → ∞ Speedup is limited by fraction of the work that is not parallelizable - will not improve even with infinite number of processors @ongchinhwee
39. Multiprocessing vs Multithreading @ongchinhwee Multiprocessing: System allows executing multiple processes at the same time using multiple processors
40. Multiprocessing vs Multithreading Multiprocessing: System allows executing multiple processes at the same time using multiple processors Multithreading: System executes multiple threads of sub-processes at the same time within a single processor @ongchinhwee
41. Multiprocessing vs Multithreading Multiprocessing: System allows executing multiple processes at the same time using multiple processors Better for processing large volumes of data Multithreading: System executes multiple threads of sub-processes at the same time within a single processor Best suited for I/O or blocking operations @ongchinhwee
42. Some Considerations Data processing tends to be more compute-intensive → Switching between threads become increasingly inefficient → Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) in Python does not allow parallel thread execution @ongchinhwee
43. How to do Parallel + Asynchronous in Python? @ongchinhwee (for data processing workflows (**)) (**) Common machine-learning libraries (e.g. scikit-learn, Tensorflow) already have their own implementation of multiprocessing
44. Parallel + Asynchronous Programming in Python concurrent.futures module • High-level API for launching asynchronous (async) parallel tasks • Introduced in Python 3.2 as an abstraction layer over multiprocessing module • Two modes of execution: ◦ ThreadPoolExecutor() for async multithreading ◦ ProcessPoolExecutor() for async multiprocessing @ongchinhwee
45. ProcessPoolExecutor vs ThreadPoolExecutor From the Python Standard Library documentation: For ProcessPoolExecutor, this method chops iterables into a number of chunks which it submits to the pool as separate tasks. The (approximate) size of these chunks can be specified by setting chunksize to a positive integer. For very long iterables, using a large value for chunksize can significantly improve performance compared to the default size of 1. With ThreadPoolExecutor, chunksize has no effect. @ongchinhwee
46. ProcessPoolExecutor vs ThreadPoolExecutor ProcessPoolExecutor: System allows executing multiple processes asynchronously using multiple processors Uses multiprocessing module - side-steps GIL ThreadPoolExecutor: System executes multiple threads of sub-processes asynchronously within a single processor Subject to GIL - not truly “concurrent” @ongchinhwee
47. submit() in concurrent.futures Executor.submit() takes as input: 1. The function (callable) that you would like to run, and 2. Input arguments (*args, **kwargs) for that function; and returns a futures object that represents the execution of the function. @ongchinhwee
48. map() in concurrent.futures Similar to map(), Executor.map() takes as input: 1. The function (callable) that you would like to run, and 2. A list (iterable) where each element of the list is a single input to that function; and returns an iterator that yields the results of the function being applied to every element of the list. @ongchinhwee
49. Case: Network I/O Operations Dataset: Data.gov.sg Realtime Weather Readings (https://data.gov.sg/dataset/realtime-weather-readings) API Endpoint URL: https://api.data.gov.sg/v1/environment/ Response: JSON format @ongchinhwee
50. Initialize Python modules import numpy as np import requests import json import sys import time import datetime from tqdm import trange, tqdm from time import sleep from retrying import retry import threading @ongchinhwee
51. Initialize API request task @retry(wait_exponential_multiplier=1000, wait_exponential_max=10000) def get_airtemp_data_from_date(date): print('{}: running {}'.format(threading.current_thread().name, date)) # for daily API request url = "https://api.data.gov.sg/v1/environment/air-temperature?date="\ + str(date) JSONContent = requests.get(url).json() content = json.dumps(JSONContent, sort_keys=True) sleep(1) print('{}: done with {}'.format( threading.current_thread().name, date)) return content threading module to monitor thread execution @ongchinhwee
52. Initialize Submission List date_range = np.array(sorted( [datetime.datetime.strftime( datetime.datetime.now() - datetime.timedelta(i) ,'%Y-%m-%d') for i in trange(100)])) @ongchinhwee
53. Using List Comprehensions start_cpu_time = time.clock() data_np = [get_airtemp_data_from_date(str(date)) for date in tqdm(date_range)] end_cpu_time = time.clock() print(end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time) @ongchinhwee
54. Using List Comprehensions start_cpu_time = time.clock() data_np = [get_airtemp_data_from_date(str(date)) for date in tqdm(date_range)] end_cpu_time = time.clock() print(end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time) List Comprehensions: 977.88 seconds (~ 16.3mins) @ongchinhwee
55. Using ThreadPoolExecutor from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor, as_completed start_cpu_time = time.clock() with ThreadPoolExecutor() as executor: future = {executor.submit(get_airtemp_data_from_date, date):date for date in tqdm(date_range)} resultarray_np = [x.result() for x in as_completed(future)] end_cpu_time = time.clock() total_tpe_time = end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time sys.stdout.write('Using ThreadPoolExecutor: {} seconds.\n'.format( total_tpe_time)) @ongchinhwee
56. Using ThreadPoolExecutor from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor, as_completed start_cpu_time = time.clock() with ThreadPoolExecutor() as executor: future = {executor.submit(get_airtemp_data_from_date, date):date for date in tqdm(date_range)} resultarray_np = [x.result() for x in as_completed(future)] end_cpu_time = time.clock() total_tpe_time = end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time sys.stdout.write('Using ThreadPoolExecutor: {} seconds.\n'.format( total_tpe_time)) ThreadPoolExecutor (40 threads): 46.83 seconds (~20.9 times faster) @ongchinhwee
57. Case: Image Processing Dataset: Chest X-Ray Images (Pneumonia) (https://www.kaggle.com/paultimothymooney/chest-xray-pneu monia) Size: 1.15GB of x-ray image files with normal and pneumonia (viral or bacterial) cases Data Quality: Images in the dataset are of different dimensions @ongchinhwee
58. Initialize Python modules import numpy as np from PIL import Image import os import sys import time @ongchinhwee
59. Initialize image resize process def image_resize(filepath): '''Resize and reshape image''' sys.stdout.write('{}: running {}\n'.format(os.getpid(),filepath)) im = Image.open(filepath) resized_im = np.array(im.resize((64,64))) sys.stdout.write('{}: done with {}\n'.format(os.getpid(),filepath)) return resized_im os.getpid() to monitor process execution @ongchinhwee
60. Initialize File List in Directory DIR = './chest_xray/train/NORMAL/' train_normal = [DIR + name for name in os.listdir(DIR) if os.path.isfile(os.path.join(DIR, name))] No. of images in ‘train/NORMAL’: 1431 @ongchinhwee
61. Using map() start_cpu_time = time.clock() result = map(image_resize, train_normal) output = np.array([x for x in result]) end_cpu_time = time.clock() total_tpe_time = end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time sys.stdout.write('Map completed in {} seconds.\n'.format(total_tpe_time)) @ongchinhwee
62. Using map() start_cpu_time = time.clock() result = map(image_resize, train_normal) output = np.array([x for x in result]) end_cpu_time = time.clock() total_tpe_time = end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time sys.stdout.write('Map completed in {} seconds.\n'.format(total_tpe_time)) map(): 29.48 seconds @ongchinhwee
63. Using List Comprehensions start_cpu_time = time.clock() listcomp_output = np.array([image_resize(x) for x in train_normal]) end_cpu_time = time.clock() total_tpe_time = end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time sys.stdout.write('List comprehension completed in {} seconds.\n'.format( total_tpe_time)) @ongchinhwee
64. Using List Comprehensions start_cpu_time = time.clock() listcomp_output = np.array([image_resize(x) for x in train_normal]) end_cpu_time = time.clock() total_tpe_time = end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time sys.stdout.write('List comprehension completed in {} seconds.\n'.format( total_tpe_time)) List Comprehensions: 29.71 seconds @ongchinhwee
65. Using ProcessPoolExecutor from concurrent.futures import ProcessPoolExecutor start_cpu_time = time.clock() with ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor: future = executor.map(image_resize, train_normal) array_np = np.array([x for x in future]) end_cpu_time = time.clock() total_tpe_time = end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time sys.stdout.write('ProcessPoolExecutor completed in {} seconds.\n'.format( total_tpe_time)) @ongchinhwee
66. Using ProcessPoolExecutor from concurrent.futures import ProcessPoolExecutor start_cpu_time = time.clock() with ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor: future = executor.map(image_resize, train_normal) array_np = np.array([x for x in future]) end_cpu_time = time.clock() total_tpe_time = end_cpu_time - start_cpu_time sys.stdout.write('ProcessPoolExecutor completed in {} seconds.\n'.format( total_tpe_time)) ProcessPoolExecutor (8 cores): 6.98 seconds (~4.3 times faster) @ongchinhwee
67. Key Takeaways @ongchinhwee
68. Not all processes should be parallelized • Parallel processes come with overheads ◦ Amdahl’s Law on parallelism ◦ System overhead including communication overhead ◦ If the cost of rewriting your code for parallelization outweighs the time savings from parallelizing your code, consider other ways of optimizing your code instead. @ongchinhwee
69. Reach out to me! : ongchinhwee : @ongchinhwee : hweecat : https://ongchinhwee.me And check out my slides on: hweecat/talk_parallel-async-python @ongchinhwee