Spark functions vs UDF performance?

Question

Spark now offers predefined functions that can be used in dataframes, and it seems they are highly optimized. My original question was going to be on which is faster, but I did some testing myself and found the spark functions to be about 10 times faster at least in one instance. Does anyone know why this is so, and when would a udf be faster (only for instances that an identical spark function exists)?

Here is my testing code (ran on Databricks community ed):

# UDF vs Spark function
from faker import Factory
from pyspark.sql.functions import lit, concat
fake = Factory.create()
fake.seed(4321)

# Each entry consists of last_name, first_name, ssn, job, and age (at least 1)
from pyspark.sql import Row
def fake_entry():
  name = fake.name().split()
  return (name[1], name[0], fake.ssn(), fake.job(), abs(2016 - fake.date_time().year) + 1)

# Create a helper function to call a function repeatedly
def repeat(times, func, *args, **kwargs):
    for _ in xrange(times):
        yield func(*args, **kwargs)
data = list(repeat(500000, fake_entry))
print len(data)
data[0]

dataDF = sqlContext.createDataFrame(data, ('last_name', 'first_name', 'ssn', 'occupation', 'age'))
dataDF.cache()

UDF function:

concat_s = udf(lambda s: s+ 's')
udfData = dataDF.select(concat_s(dataDF.first_name).alias('name'))
udfData.count()

Spark Function:

spfData = dataDF.select(concat(dataDF.first_name, lit('s')).alias('name'))
spfData.count()

Ran both multiple times, the udf usually took about 1.1 - 1.4 s, and the Spark concat function always took under 0.15 s.

Answer 1

when would a udf be faster

If you ask about Python UDF the answer is probably never*. Since SQL functions are relatively simple and are not designed for complex tasks it is pretty much impossible compensate the cost of repeated serialization, deserialization and data movement between Python interpreter and JVM.

Does anyone know why this is so

The main reasons are already enumerated above and can be reduced to a simple fact that Spark DataFrame is natively a JVM structure and standard access methods are implemented by simple calls to Java API. UDF from the other hand are implemented in Python and require moving data back and forth.

While PySpark in general requires data movements between JVM and Python, in case of low level RDD API it typically doesn't require expensive serde activity. Spark SQL adds additional cost of serialization and serialization as well cost of moving data from and to unsafe representation on JVM. The later one is specific to all UDFs (Python, Scala and Java) but the former one is specific to non-native languages.

Unlike UDFs, Spark SQL functions operate directly on JVM and typically are well integrated with both Catalyst and Tungsten. It means these can be optimized in the execution plan and most of the time can benefit from codgen and other Tungsten optimizations. Moreover these can operate on data in its "native" representation.

So in a sense the problem here is that Python UDF has to bring data to the code while SQL expressions go the other way around.

---

* According to rough estimates PySpark window UDF can beat Scala window function.