Category: Data Lake

Terry McCann posts Q&A from Simon Whiteley’s session on Lakehouse models in Spark 3.0:

“WHILE ALL THE HADOOP PROVIDERS PROMOTED THE DATALAKE PARADIGM BACK THEN, HOW THE INDUSTRY AND THE OTHER DATA LAKE PROVIDERS ARE SHIFTING TO/CONSIDERING THE LAKE HOUSE PARADIGM?“

It’s a direction that most providers are heading in, albeit under the “unified analytics” or “modern warehouse” name rather than the “lakehouse”. But most big relational engines are moving to bring in spark/big data capabilities, other lake providers are looking to expand their SQL coverage. It’s a bit of a race to who gets to the “can do both sides as well as a specialist tool” point first. Will we see other tools championing it as a “lakehouse”, or is that term now tied too closely as a “vendor-specific” term coming from Databricks? We’ll see…

Click through for some good questions and thoughtful answers.

Simon Whiteley looks at the current status of the Lakehouse model:

We have discussed in the past this idea of the lakehouse, the aspirational target of many analytics platforms these days of combining the huge power and potential of data lakes with the rigour, reliability and concurrency of a data warehouse. It’s an interesting concept but has, in the past, been firmly an aspiration.

In the world without lakehouses, we often see the “Modern Data Warehouse”, this two-phased approach to providing a holistic platform – we load our early data into a lake where we shape it and massage it into an understandable state. It is here we perform data science, exploratory data analysis, early sight analytics prototyping and various other functions that don’t quite fit into a data warehouse… but then we load our data into a relational store for serving to the business. This is where we can meet their demands for a rich SQL environment, auditable data models and rigorous change procedures. Essentially, we store data twice so that we can achieve the best of both worlds.

Definitely read Simon’s take on it. My take is that the Lakehouse concept will start to be useful to specific companies in about 2-3 years, as I don’t think the performance is there today.

Tathagata Das, et al, take us through how Delta Lake handles update, delete, and merge operations:

`DELETE` works just like `UPDATE` under the hood. Delta Lake makes two scans of the data: the first scan is to identify any data files that contain rows matching the predicate condition. The second scan reads the matching data files into memory, at which point Delta Lake deletes the rows in question before writing out the newly clean data to disk.

After Delta Lake completes a `DELETE` operation successfully, the old data files are not deleted — they’re still retained on disk, but recorded as “tombstoned” (no longer part of the active table) in the Delta Lake transaction log. Remember, those old files aren’t deleted immediately because you might still need them to time travel back to an earlier version of the table. If you want to delete files older than a certain time period, you can use the `VACUUM` command.

Click through for a video as well as a blog post with the details.

Burak Yavuz and Pranav Anand show us how to clone Delta Lakes:

Clones are replicas of a source table at a given point in time. They have the same metadata as the source table: same schema, constraints, column descriptions, statistics, and partitioning. However, they behave as a separate table with a separate lineage or history. Any changes made to clones only affect the clone and not the source. Any changes that happen to the source during or after the cloning process also do not get reflected in the clone due to Snapshot Isolation. In Databricks Delta Lake we have two types of clones: shallow or deep.

Read on to learn the differences, as well as a few useful scenarios.