Limit(n) vs Show(n) performance disparity in Pyspark

Trying to get a deeper understanding of how spark works and was playing around with the pyspark cli (2.4.0). I was looking for the difference between using limit(n).show() and show(n). I ended up getting two very different performance times for two very similar queries. Below are the commands I ran. The parquet file referenced in the code below has about 50 columns and is over 50gb in size on remote HDFS.

# Create dataframe
>>> df = sqlContext.read.parquet('hdfs://hdfs.host/path/to.parquet') ↵

# Create test1 dataframe
>>> test1 = df.select('test_col') ↵
>>> test1.schema ↵
StructType(List(StructField(test_col,ArrayType(LongType,true),true)))
>>> test1.explain() ↵
== Physical Plan ==
*(1) Project [test_col#40]
+- *(1) FileScan parquet [test_col#40]
    Batched: false,
    Format: Parquet,
    Location: InMemoryFileIndex[hdfs://hdfs.host/path/to.parquet],
    PartitionCount: 25,
    PartitionFilters: [],
    PushedFilters: [],
    ReadSchema: struct<test_col:array<bigint>>

# Create test2 dataframe
>>> test2 = df.select('test_col').limit(5) ↵
>>> test2.schema ↵
StructType(List(StructField(test_col,ArrayType(LongType,true),true)))
>>> test2.explain() ↵
== Physical Plan ==
CollectLimit 5
+- *(1) Project [test_col#40]
   +- *(1) FileScan parquet [test_col#40]
     Batched: false,
     Format: Parquet,
     Location: InMemoryFileIndex[hdfs://hdfs.host/path/to.parquet],
     PartitionCount: 25,
     PartitionFilters: [],
     PushedFilters: [],
     ReadSchema: struct<test_col:array<bigint>>

Notice that the physical plan is almost identical for both test1 and test2. The only exception is test2's plan starts with "CollectLimit 5". After setting this up I ran test1.show(5) and test2.show(5). Test 1 returned the results instantaneously. Test 2 showed a progress bar with 2010 tasks and took about 20 minutes to complete (I only had one executor)

Question Why did test 2 (with limit) perform so poorly compared to test 1 (without limit)? The data set and result set were identical and the physical plan was nearly identical.