SparkR vs sparklyr [closed]

Answer 1

As I don't see too many answers which are in favour sparkR I just want to mention that as a newbie I started learning them both and I see that sparkR api is more closely related to the one I use with standard scala-spark. As I study them both I mean I want to use rstudio and also scala, I need to choose between sparkr and sparklyr. Learning sparkR together with scala-spark api, seem's to be of less effort than learning sparklyr which is much more different at least in my perspective. However sparklyr appears more powerful. So for me it's a question of do you want to use the more powerful and commonly used library with more support from community or do you compromise and use the more similar api as in scala-spark that is at least my perspective on choosing.

Answer 2

I can give you the highlights for sparklyr:

• Supports dplyr, Spark ML and H2O.
• Distributed on CRAN.
• Easy to install.
• Extensible.

In the current 0.4 version, it does not support arbitrary parallel code execution yet. However, extensions can be easily written in Scala to overcome this limitation, see sparkhello.

Answer 3

... adding to the above from Javier...

That I can find so far, sparklyr does not support do(), making it of use only when you want to do what's permitted by mutate, summarise, etc. Under the hood, sparklyr is transforming to Spark SQL, but doesn't (yet?) transform do() to something like a UDF.

Also, that I can find so far, sparklyr doesn't support tidyr, including unnest().

Answer 4

Being a wrapper, there are some limitations to sparklyr. For example, using copy_to() to create a Spark dataframe does not preserve columns formatted as dates. With SparkR, as.Dataframe() preserves dates.

Answer 5

The biggest advantage of SparkR is the ability to run on Spark arbitrary user-defined functions written in R:

https://spark.apache.org/docs/2.0.1/sparkr.html#applying-user-defined-function

Since sparklyr translates R to SQL, you can only use very small set of functions in mutate statements:

http://spark.rstudio.com/dplyr.html#sql_translation

That deficiency is somewhat alleviated by Extensions (http://spark.rstudio.com/extensions.html#wrapper_functions).

Other than that, sparklyr is a winner (in my opinion). Aside from the obvious advantage of using familiar dplyr functions, sparklyr has much more comprehensive API for MLlib (http://spark.rstudio.com/mllib.html) and the Extensions mentioned above.

Answer 6

I recently wrote an overview of the advantages/disadvantages of SparkR vs sparklyr, which may be of interest: https://eddjberry.netlify.com/post/2017-12-05-sparkr-vs-sparklyr/.

There's a table at the top of the post that gives a rough overview of the differences for a range of criteria.

I conclude that sparklyr is preferable to SparkR. The most notable advantages are:

1. Better data manipulation through compatibility with dpylr
2. Better function naming conventions
3. Better tools for quickly evaluating ML models
4. Easier to run arbitrary code on a Spark DataFrame