Delta Lake Vs Hive and Parquet
Uploaded by
Sandeep PamarthiDelta Lake Vs Hive and Parquet
Uploaded by
Sandeep PamarthiPerformance Benchmarks: Delta Lake vs Hive and Parquet
Abstract
Delta Lake and Apache Hive with Parquet were two widely adopted technologies for managing
large-scale analytical workloads. This white paper presents a comparative performance
benchmark between Delta Lake and Hive-on-Parquet using real-world workloads and synthetic
datasets. We evaluate them across query latency, write throughput, metadata scalability,
concurrency, and operational complexity. The findings highlight the strengths and trade-offs of
each approach, aiding engineering teams in selecting the optimal solution for modern data lake
architectures.
1. Introduction
As enterprises moved toward data lake architectures, the need for performant and reliable data
formats and query engines became critical. Apache Hive with Parquet was the de facto standard
for many batch workloads, while Delta Lake introduced ACID transactions, data skipping, and
unified batch/stream support. This paper benchmarks both to quantify their impact on
performance and usability.
2. Test Environment
• Cluster: 3-node AWS EC2 r5.xlarge instances
• Storage: Amazon S3 (EMRFS for Hive, DBIO for Delta)
• Dataset: 1TB synthetic sales data, partitioned by date and region
• Query Engine: Apache Spark 2.4 for Delta, Hive 2.3 with Tez execution
• Benchmark Tool: TPC-DS and custom Spark SQL scripts
• Metrics: Query latency, write speed, metadata handling, error recovery
3. Benchmark Scenarios
1. Initial Write Performance
2. Partition Pruning
3. Aggregation and Filtering Queries
4. Schema Evolution
5. Concurrent Read-Write Load
6. Time Travel and Recovery
7. Metadata Handling (millions of files)
8. Update and Delete Operations
4. Results Summary
Scenario Delta Lake Hive + Parquet
Write Throughput (1TB) 110 MB/s 95 MB/s
Read Latency (filtered query) 3.2s 8.7s
Metadata Load Time (10M 4s 61s
files)
Partition Pruning Query 1.9s 5.3s
Time Travel Query 2.4s N/A
Schema Evolution Yes Manual workaround
ACID Support Yes Partial (via Hive 3 txn)
Streaming Writes Yes No
5. Write Performance
Delta Lake uses optimistic concurrency and commit logs for faster ingestion into partitioned
tables. Hive's write path includes partition registration and table-level locking, making it slower
under high concurrency. Delta supports auto-compaction and file skipping to optimize layout.
6. Read and Query Performance
Delta Lake's performance advantage stems from:
• Data skipping using file-level min/max stats
• Z-ordering for clustered filtering
• Snapshot isolation to eliminate inconsistencies
In contrast, Hive lacks automatic data skipping and performs full metadata scans when partitions
exceed millions.
7. Metadata Scalability
Hive Metastore can become a bottleneck with large datasets due to reliance on metadata RPCs.
Delta Lake uses log-based snapshots and checkpoints to reconstruct table state in seconds, even
with millions of files. This improves read consistency and operational predictability.
8. Streaming and Real-Time Workloads
Delta Lake supports streaming writes and reads via Structured Streaming APIs, enabling near real-
time ETL and data freshness. Hive lacks native support for continuous ingestion or exactly-once
semantics, making it unsuitable for latency-sensitive pipelines.
9. Time Travel and Versioning
Delta Lake's ability to query previous versions via `VERSION AS OF` or `TIMESTAMP AS OF`
supports reproducible experiments and rollback. Hive does not support native versioning, relying
instead on manual snapshots or backups.
10. Operational Complexity
Hive requires additional services like Hive Metastore, Tez/YARN, and manually tuned
configuration files. Delta Lake simplifies operations by consolidating batch and streaming with
native ACID guarantees, fewer moving parts, and built-in schema enforcement.
11. Limitations
• Delta Lake had limited support outside Spark engines.
• Hive query federation with tools like Presto was more mature.
• Delta's MERGE INTO operations required careful predicate tuning to avoid performance
degradation on large tables.
12. Conclusion
Delta Lake outperformed Hive-on-Parquet in nearly every benchmark dimension, particularly in
metadata handling, query latency, and transactional support. While Hive remained a viable
solution for traditional batch pipelines, Delta Lake provided a future-ready foundation for unified
batch-stream pipelines with reliability, speed, and simplified operations.
References
1. Delta Lake Benchmarks – Databricks Blog
