I need to parse (and transform and write) a large binary file (larger than memory) in Java. I also need to do so as efficiently as possible in a single thread. And, finally, the format being read is very structured, so it would be good to have some kind of parser library (so that the code is close to the complex specification).
The amount of lookahead needed for parsing should be small, if that matters.
So my questions are:
How important is nio v io for a single threaded, high volume application?
Are there any good parser libraries for binary data?
How well do parsers support streaming transformations (I want to be able to stream the data being parsed to some output during parsing - I don't want to have to construct an entire parse tree in memory before writing things out)?
On the nio front my suspicion is that nio isn't going to help much, as I am likely disk limited (and since it's a single thread, there's no loss in simply blocking). Also, I suspect io-based parsers are more common.
Let me try to explain if and how Preon addresses all of the concerns you mention:
I need to parse (and transform and write) a large binary file (larger
than memory) in Java.
That's exactly why Preon was created. You want to be able to process the entire file, without loading it into memory entirely. Still, the program model gives you a pointer to a data structure that appears to be in memory entirely. However, Preon will try to load data as lazily as it can.
To explain what that means, imagine that somewhere in your data structure, you have a collection of things that are encoded in a binary representation with a constant size; say that every element will be encoded in 20 bytes. Then Preon will first of all not load that collection in memory at all, and if you're grabbing data beyond that collection, it will never touch that region of your encoded representation at all. However, if you would pick the 300th element of that collection, it would (instead of decoding all elements up to the 300th element), calculate the offset for that element, and jump there immediately.
From the outside, it is as though you have a reference to a list that is fully populated. From the inside, it only goes out to grab an element of the list if you ask for it. (And forget about it immediately afterward, unless you instruct Preon to do things differently.)
I also need to do so as efficiently as possible in a single thread.
I'm not sure what you mean by efficiently. It could mean efficiently in terms of memory consumption, or efficiently in terms of disk IO, or perhaps you mean it should be really fast. I think it's fair to say that Preon aims to strike a balance between an easy programming model, memory use and a number of other concerns. If you really need to traverse all data in a sequential way, then perhaps there are ways that are more efficient in terms of computational resources, but I think that would come at the cost of "ease of programming".
And, finally, the format being read is very structured, so it would be
good to have some kind of parser library (so that the code is close to
the complex specification).
The way I implemented support for Java byte code, is to just read the byte code specification, and then map all of the structures they mention in there directly to Java classes with annotations. I think Preon comes pretty close to what you're looking for.
You might also want to check out preon-emitter, since it allows you to generate annotated hexdumps (such as in this example of the hexdump of a Java class file) of your data, a capability that I haven't seen in any other library. (Hint: make sure you hover with your mouse over the hex numbers.)
The same goes for the documentation it generates. The aim has always been to mak sure it creates documentation that could be posted to Wikipedia, just like that. It may not be perfect yet, but I'm not unhappy with what it's currently capable of doing. (For an example: this is the documentation generated for Java's class file specification.)
The amount of lookahead needed for parsing should be small, if that matters.
Okay, that's good. In fact, that's even vital for Preon. Preon doesn't support lookahead. It does support looking back though. (That is, sometimes part the encoding mechanism is driven by data that was read before. Preon allows you to declare dependencies that point back to data read before.)
Are there any good parser libraries for binary data?
Preon! ;-)
How well do parsers support streaming transformations (I want to be
able to stream the data being parsed to some output during parsing - I
don't want to have to construct an entire parse tree in memory before
writing things out)?
As I outlined above, Preon does not construct the entire data structure in memory before you can start processing it. So, in that sense, you're good. However, there is nothing in Preon supporting transformations as first class citizens, and it's support for encoding is limited.
On the nio front my suspicion is that nio isn't going to help much, as
I am likely disk limited (and since it's a single thread, there's no
loss in simply blocking). Also, I suspect io-based parsers are more
common.
Preon uses NIO, but only it's support for memory mapped files.
On NIO vs IO you are right, going with IO should be the right choice - less complexity, stream oriented etc.
For a binary parsing library - checkout Preon
Using a Memory Mapped File you can read through it without worrying about your memory and it's fast.
I think you are correct re NIO vs IO unless you have little endian data as NIO can read little endian natively.
I am not aware of any fast binary parsers, generally you want to call the NIO or IO directly.
Memory mapped files can help with writing from a single thread as you don't have to flush it as you write. (But it can be more cumbersome to use)
You can stream the data how you like, I don't forsee any problems.
Related
I am making an application in Java which uses files to store information with serialization. The trouble I ran into was that everytime I update one of my classes thats being store I obviously get InvalidClassException. The process I am following for now is that I just rm all the files and rebuild them. Obviously thats tidious with 5 Users,and I couldnt continue it with 10. Whats the standard best practice when updating Serialized objects to not lose the information from the files?
Mostly?
Stop using java's baked-in serialization. It sucks. This isn't just an opinion - the OpenJDK engineers themselves routinely raise fairly serious eyebrows when the topic of java's baked in serialization mechanism (ObjectInputStream / ObjectOutputStream comes up). In particular:
It is binary.
It is effectively unspecified; you will never be reading or writing it with anything other than java code.
Assuming multiple versions are involved (and it is - that's what your question is all about), it is extremely convoluted and requires advanced java knowledge to try to spin together some tests to ensure that things are backwards/forwards compatible as desired.
The format is not particularly efficient even though it is binary.
The API is weirdly un-java-like (with structural typing even, that's.. bizarre).
So what should I do?
You use an explicit serializer: A library that you include which does the serialization. There are many options. You can use GSON or Jackson to turn your object into a JSON string, and then store that. JSON is textual, fairly easy to read, and can be read and modified by just about any language. Because you 'control' what happens, its a lot simpler to tweak the format and define what is supposed to happen (e.g. if you add a new field in the code, you can specify what the default should be in your Jackson or GSON annotations, and that's the value that you get when you read in a file written with a version of your class that didn't have that field).
JSON is not efficient on disk at all, but its trivial to wrap your writes and reads with GZipInputStream / GZipOutputStream if that's an issue.
An alternative is protobuf. It is more effort but you end up with a binary data format that is fairly compact even if not compressed, and can still be read and written to from many, many languages, and which also parses way faster (this is irrelevant, computers are so fast, the bottleneck will be network or disk, but, if you're reading this stuff on battery-powered raspberry pis or what not, it matters).
I really want to stick with java's baked-in serialization
Read the docs, then. The specific part you want here is what serialVersionUID is all about, but there are so many warts and caveats, you should mostly definitely not just put an svuid in and move on with life - you'll run into the next weird bug in about 5 seconds. Read it all, experiment, attempt to understand it fully.
Then give up, realize it's a mess and ridiculously complicated to test properly, and use one of the above options.
What options are there for processing large files quickly, multiple times?
I have a single file (min 1.5 GB, but can be upwards of 10-15 GB) that needs to be read multiple times - on the order of hundreds to thousands of times. The server has a large amount of RAM (64+ GB) and plenty of processors (24+).
The file will be sequential, read-only. Files are encrypted (sensitive data) on disk. I also use MessagePack to deserialize them into objects during the read process.
I cannot store the objects created from the file into memory - too large of an expansion (1.5 GB file turns into 35 GB in-memory object array). File can't be stored as a byte array (limited by Java's array length of 2^32-1).
My initial thought is to use a memory mapped file, but that has its own set of limitations.
The idea is to get the file off the disk and into memory for processing.
The large volume of data is for a machine learning algorithm, that requires multiple reads. During the calculation of each file pass, there's a considerable amount of heap usage by the algorithm itself, which is unavoidable, hence the requirement to read it multiple times.
The problem you have here is that you cannot mmap() the way the system call of the same name does; the syscall can map up to 2^64, FileChannel#map() cannot map more than 2^30 reliably.
However, what you can do is wrap a FileChannel into a class and create several "map ranges" covering all the file.
I have done "nearly" such a thing except more complicated: largetext. More complicated because I have to do the decoding process to boot, and the text which is loaded must be so into memory, unlike you who reads bytes. Less complicated because I have a define JDK interface to implement and you don't.
You can however use nearly the same technique using Guava and a RangeMap<Long, MappedByteBuffer>.
I implement CharSequence in this project above; I suggest that you implement a LargeByteMapping interface instead, from which you can read whatever parts you want; or, well, whatever suits you. Your main problem will be to define that interface. I suspect what CharSequence does is not what you want.
Meh, I may even have a go at it some day, largetext is quite exciting a project and this looks like the same kind of thing; except less complicated, ultimately!
One could even imagine a LargeByteMapping implementation where a factory would create such mappings with only a small part of that into memory and the rest written to a file; and such an implementation would also use the principle of locality: the latest queried part of the file into memory would be kept into memory for faster access.
See also here.
EDIT I feel some more explanation is needed here... A MappedByteBuffer will NOT EAT HEAP SPACE!!
It will eat address space only; it is nearly the equivalent of a ByteBuffer.allocateDirect(), except it is backed by a file.
And a very important distinction needs to be made here; all of the text above supposes that you are reading bytes, not characters!
Figure out how to structure the data. Get a good book about NoSQL and find the appropriate Database (Wide-Column, Graph, etc.) for your scenario. That's what I'd do. You'd not only have sophisticated query methods on your data but also mangling the data using distribute map-reduced implementations doing whatever you want. Maybe that's what you want (you even dropped the bigdata bomb)
How about creating "a dictionary" as the bridge between your program and the target file? Your program will call the dictionary then dictionary will refer you to the big fat file.
I am looking for a simple way to store and retrieve millions of xml files. Currently everything is done in a filesystem, which has some performance issues.
Our requirements are:
Ability to store millions of xml-files in a batch-process. XML files may be up to a few megs large, most in the 100KB-range.
Very fast random lookup by id (e.g. document URL)
Accessible by both Java and Perl
Available on the most important Linux-Distros and Windows
I did have a look at several NoSQL-Platforms (e.g. CouchDB, Riak and others), and while those systems look great, they seem almost like beeing overkill:
No clustering required
No daemon ("service") required
No clever search functionality required
Having delved deeper into Riak, I have found Bitcask (see intro), which seems like exactly what I want. The basics described in the intro are really intriguing. But unfortunately there is no means to access a bitcask repo via java (or is there?)
Soo my question boils down to
is the following assumption right: the Bitcask model (append-only writes, in-memory key management) is the right way to store/retrieve millions of documents
are there any viable alternatives to Bitcask available via Java? (BerkleyDB comes to mind...)
(for riak specialists) Is Riak much overhead implementation/management/resource wise compared to "naked" Bitcask?
I don't think that Bitcask is going to work well for your use-case. It looks like the Bitcask model is designed for use-cases where the size of each value is relatively small.
The problem is in Bitcask's data file merging process. This involves copying all of the live values from a number of "older data file" into the "merged data file". If you've got millions of values in the region of 100Kb each, this is an insane amount of data copying.
Note the above assumes that the XML documents are updated relatively frequently. If updates are rare and / or you can cope with a significant amount of space "waste", then merging may only need to be done rarely, or not at all.
Bitcask can be appropriate for this case (large values) depending on whether or not there is a great deal of overwriting. In particular, there is not reason to merge files unless there is a great deal of wasted space, which only occurs when new values arrive with the same key as old values.
Bitcask is particularly good for this batch load case as it will sequentially write the incoming data stream straight to disk. Lookups will take one seek in most cases, although the file cache will help you if there is any temporal locality.
I am not sure on the status of a Java version/wrapper.
Alright. So I have a very large amount of binary data (let's say, 10GB) distributed over a bunch of files (let's say, 5000) of varying lengths.
I am writing a Java application to process this data, and I wish to institute a good design for the data access. Typically what will happen is such:
One way or another, all the data will be read during the course of processing.
Each file is (typically) read sequentially, requiring only a few kilobytes at a time. However, it is often necessary to have, say, the first few kilobytes of each file simultaneously, or the middle few kilobytes of each file simultaneously, etc.
There are times when the application will want random access to a byte or two here and there.
Currently I am using the RandomAccessFile class to read into byte buffers (and ByteBuffers). My ultimate goal is to encapsulate the data access into some class such that it is fast and I never have to worry about it again. The basic functionality is that I will be asking it to read frames of data from specified files, and I wish to minimize the I/O operations given the considerations above.
Examples for typical access:
Give me the first 10 kilobytes of all my files!
Give me byte 0 through 999 of file F, then give me byte 1 through 1000, then give me 2 through 1001, etc, etc, ...
Give me a megabyte of data from file F starting at such and such byte!
Any suggestions for a good design?
Use Java NIO and MappedByteBuffers, and treat your files as a list of byte arrays. Then, let the OS worry about the details of caching, read, flushing etc.
#Will
Pretty good results. Reading a large binary file quick comparison:
Test 1 - Basic sequential read with RandomAccessFile.
2656 ms
Test 2 - Basic sequential read with buffering.
47 ms
Test 3 - Basic sequential read with MappedByteBuffers and further frame buffering optimization.
16 ms
Wow. You are basically implementing a database from scratch. Is there any possibility of importing the data into an actual RDBMS and just using SQL?
If you do it yourself you will eventually want to implement some sort of caching mechanism, so the data you need comes out of RAM if it is there, and you are reading and writing the files in a lower layer.
Of course, this also entails a lot of complex transactional logic to make sure your data stays consistent.
I was going to suggest that you follow up on Eric's database idea and learn how databases manage their buffers—effectively implementing their own virtual memory management.
But as I thought about it more, I concluded that most operating systems are already a better job of implementing file system caching than you can likely do without low-level access in Java.
There is one lesson from database buffer management that you might consider, though. Databases use an understanding of the query plan to optimize the management strategy.
In a relational database, it's often best to evict the most-recently-used block from the cache. For example, a "young" block holding a child record in a join won't be looked at again, while the block containing its parent record is still in use even though it's "older".
Operating system file caches, on the other hand, are optimized to reuse recently used data (and reading ahead of the most recently used data). If your application doesn't fit that pattern, it may be worth managing the cache yourself.
You may want to take a look at an open source, simple object database called jdbm - it has a lot of this kind of thing developed, including ACID capabilities.
I've done a number of contributions to the project, and it would be worth a review of the source code if nothing else to see how we solved many of the same problems you might be working on.
Now, if your data files are not under your control (i.e. you are parsing text files generated by someone else, etc...) then the page-structured type of storage that jdbm uses may not be appropriate for you - but if all of these files are files that you are creating and working with, it may be worth a look.
#Eric
But my queries are going to be much, much simpler than anything I can do with SQL. And wouldn't a database access be much more expensive than a binary data read?
This is to answer the part about minimizing I/O traffic. On the Java side, all you can really do is wrap your readers in BufferedReaders. Aside from that, your operating system will handle other optimizations like keeping recently-read data in the page cache and doing read-ahead on files to speed up sequential reads. There's no point in doing additional buffering in Java (although you'll still need a byte buffer to return the data to the client).
I had someone recommend hadoop (http://hadoop.apache.org) to me just the other day. It looks like it could be pretty nice, and might have some marketplace traction.
I would step back and ask yourself why you are using files as your system of record, and what gains that gives you over using a database. A database certainly gives you the ability to structure your data. Given the SQL standard, it might be more maintainable in the long run.
On the other hand, your file data may not be structured so easily within the constraints of a database. The largest search company in the world :) doesn't use a database for their business processing. See here and here.
I need to serialize a huge amount of data (around 2gigs) of small objects into a single file in order to be processed later by another Java process. Performance is kind of important. Can anyone suggest a good method to achieve this?
Have you taken a look at google's protocol buffers? Sounds like a use case for it.
I don't know why Java Serialization got voted down, it's a perfectly viable mechanism.
It's not clear from the original post, but is all 2G of data in the heap at the same time? Or are you dumping something else?
Out of the box, Serialization isn't the "perfect" solution, but if you implement Externalizable on your objects, Serialization can work just fine. Serializations big expense is figuring out what to write and how to write it. By implementing Externalizable, you take those decisions out of its hands, thus gaining quite a boost in performance, and a space savings.
While I/O is a primary cost of writing large amounts of data, the incidental costs of converting the data can also be very expensive. For example, you don't want to convert all of your numbers to text and then back again, better to store them in a more native format if possible. ObjectStream has methods to read/write the native types in Java.
If all of your data is designed to be loaded in to a single structure, you could simply do ObjectOutputStream.writeObject(yourBigDatastructure), after you've implemented Externalizable.
However, you could also iterate over your structure and call writeObject on the individual objects.
Either way, you're going to need some "objectToFile" routine, perhaps several. And that's effectively what Externalizable provides, as well as a framework to walk your structure.
The other issue, of course, is versioning, etc. But since you implement all of the serialization routines yourself, you have full control over that as well.
A simplest approach coming immediately to my mind is using memory-mapped buffer of NIO (java.nio.MappedByteBuffer). Use the single buffer (approximately) corresponding to the size of one object and flush/append them to the output file when necessary. Memory-mapped buffers are very effecient.
Have you tried java serialization? You would write them out using an ObjectOutputStream and read 'em back in using an ObjectInputStream. Of course the classes would have to be Serializable. It would be the low effort solution and, because the objects are stored in binary, it would be compact and fast.
I developped JOAFIP as database alternative.
Apache Avro might be also usefull. It's designed to be language independent and has bindings for the popular languages.
Check it out.
protocol buffers : makes sense. here's an excerpt from their wiki : http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/javatutorial.html
Getting More Speed
By default, the protocol buffer compiler tries to generate smaller files by using reflection to implement most functionality (e.g. parsing and serialization). However, the compiler can also generate code optimized explicitly for your message types, often providing an order of magnitude performance boost, but also doubling the size of the code. If profiling shows that your application is spending a lot of time in the protocol buffer library, you should try changing the optimization mode. Simply add the following line to your .proto file:
option optimize_for = SPEED;
Re-run the protocol compiler, and it will generate extremely fast parsing, serialization, and other code.
You should probably consider a database solution--all databases do is optimize their information, and if you use Hibernate, you keep your object model as is and don't really even think about your DB (I believe that's why it's called hibernate, just store your data off, then bring it back)
If performance is very importing then you need write it self. You should use a compact binary format. Because with 2 GB the disk I/O operation are very important. If you use any human readable format like XML or other scripts you resize the data with a factor of 2 or more.
Depending on the data it can be speed up if you compress the data on the fly with a low compression rate.
A total no go is Java serialization because on reading Java check on every object if it is a reference to an existing object.