Apache Hive is database/data warehouse software that supports data querying and analysis of large datasets stored in the Hadoop distributed file system (HDFS) and other compatible systems, and is distributed under an open source license.
N/A
Apache Spark
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Apache Spark is a multi-language engine for executing data engineering, data science, and machine learning on single-node machines or clusters.
N/A
Google BigQuery
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Google's BigQuery is part of the Google Cloud Platform, a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) supporting the querying and rapid analysis of enterprise data.
$6.25
per TiB (after the 1st 1 TiB per month, which is free)
Besides Hive, I have used Google BigQuery, which is costly but have very high computation speed. Amazon Redshift is the another product, I used in my recent organisation. Both Redshift and BigQuery are managed solution whereas Hive needs to be managed
Apache Hive is a query language developed by Facebook to query over a large distributed dataset. Apache is a query engine that runs on top of HDFS, so it utilizes the resources of HDFS Hadoop setup, while Apache Spark is an in memory compute engine, and that's why [it is] much …
Apache Spark is similar in the sense that it too can be used to query and process large amounts of data through its Dataframe interface. Hive is better for short-term querying while Spark is better for persistent and long-term analysis. Another product is Impala. For our …
To query a huge, distributed dataset, Apache Hive was built by Facebook. Unlike Apache Hive, Apache Spark is an in-memory computation engine, which is why it is significantly quicker than Apache Hive at querying large amounts of data. In contrast to Apache HBase, Apache Hive is …
Hive and Spark have the same parent company hence they share a lot of common features. Hive follows SQL syntax while Spark has support for RDD, DataFrame API. DataFrame API supports both SQL syntax and has custom functions to perform the same functionality. Spark is faster and …
One of the major advantages of using Presto or the main reason why people use Presto (Teradata) is due to that fact it can support multiple data sources - which is lacking as in the case of Apache Hive. But still, most people who come from a Structured data-based background …
Easy to understand, well supported by the community, good documentation. However, it is possible that SAP Business Warehouse could be a good fit, too, even maybe better. I did not have the chance to try it though. We selected Apache Hive because it was far less expensive and …
Hive was one of the first SQL on Hadoop technologies, and it comes bundled with the main Hadoop distributions of HDP and CDH. Since its release, it has gained good improvements, but selecting the right SQL on Hadoop technology requires a good understanding of the strengths and …
For storing bulk amount of data in a tabular manner, and where there's no need need of primary key, or just in case, if redundant data is received, it will not cause a problem. For small amounts of data, it does run MR, so beware. If your intention is to use it as a …
I wasn't part of the evaluation process for Apache Hive. This was already implemented when I joined the company. I have worked with other big data plaftforms and I personally thinks most of them are quite comporable to one another. It really depends on what the company is going …
Apache Pig is probably the most direct technology to compare to Hive and has several different use cases to Hive. If you want to simplify processing tasks that run using MapReduce then Apache Pig may be a better tool for the job. However if you are going to be running many …
Apache Spark is a fast-processing in-memory computing framework. It is 10 times faster than Apache Hadoop. Earlier we were using Apache Hadoop for processing data on the disk but now we are shifted to Apache Spark because of its in-memory computation capability. Also in SAP …
Verified User
Engineer
Chose Apache Spark
Apache Spark has much more better performance and features if we compare with Hive or map/reduce kind of solutions. Spark has many other features for machine learning, streaming.
All the above systems work quite well on big data transformations whereas Spark really shines with its bigger API support and its ability to read from and write to multiple data sources. Using Spark one can easily switch between declarative versus imperative versus functional …
Even with Python, MapReduce is lengthy coding. Combination of Python with Apache Spark will not only shorten the code, but it will effectively increase the speed of algorithms. Occasionally, I use MapReduce, but Apache Spark will replace MapReduce very soon. It has many …
Spark in comparison to similar technologies ends up being a one stop shop. You can achieve so much with this one framework instead of having to stitch and weave multiple technologies from the Hadoop stack, all while getting incredibility performance, minimal boilerplate, and …
Apache Pig and Apache Hive provide most of the things spark provide but apache spark has more features like actions and transformations which are easy to code. Spark uses optimization technique as we can select driver program and manipulate DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) Python …
Spark has primarily replaced my use of writing pure Hadoop MapReduce or Apache Pig jobs for processing data. I like the fact that I can alternate between the main programming languages that I know - Java and Python - and use those to learn the Scala API. Spark also can be …
Other locally hosted solutions are capable of providing the required level of performance, but the administration requirements are significantly more involved than with BigQuery. Additionally, there are capacity and availability concerns with locally hosted platforms that are a …
BigQuery by far the best solution in all angles compared to other ones: Especially scalability, ease of use, performance and there is no need to manage any cluster of servers. Also it's ABSOLUTELY pay as you go! No one in market currently provide such service that can compete …
Spinning up, provisioning, maintaining and debugging a Hadoop solution can be non-trivial, painful. I'm talking about both GCE based or HDInsight clusters. It requires expertise (+ employee hire, costs). With BigQuery if someone has a good SQL knowledge (and maybe a little …
Software work execution is on a large scale, it is good to use for new projects or organizational changes, data lineage mapping has always been dubious but this one has had good results. You can store and synchronize data from different departments, the storage process can be manual but it is best automated.
Well suited: To most of the local run of datasets and non-prod systems - scalability is not a problem at all. Including data from multiple types of data sources is an added advantage. MLlib is a decently nice built-in library that can be used for most of the ML tasks. Less appropriate: We had to work on a RecSys where the music dataset that we used was around 300+Gb in size. We faced memory-based issues. Few times we also got memory errors. Also the MLlib library does not have support for advanced analytics and deep-learning frameworks support. Understanding the internals of the working of Apache Spark for beginners is highly not possible.
Event-based data can be captured seamlessly from our data layers (and exported to Google BigQuery). When events like page-views, clicks, add-to-cart are tracked, Google BigQuery can help efficiently with running queries to observe patterns in user behaviour. That intermediate step of trying to "untangle" event data is resolved by Google BigQuery. A scenario where it could possibly be less appropriate is when analysing "granular" details (like small changes to a database happening very frequently).
Apache Hive allows use to write expressive solutions to complex problems thanks to its SQL-like syntax.
Relatively easy to set up and start using.
Very little ramp-up to start using the actual product, documentation is very thorough, there is an active community, and the code base is constantly being improved.
GSheet data can be linked to a BigQuery table and the data in that sheet is ingested in realtime into BigQuery. It's a live 'sync' which means it supports insertions, deletions, and alterations. The only limitation here is the schema'; this remains static once the table is created.
Seamless integration with other GCP products.
A simple pipeline might look like this:-
GForms -> GSheets -> BigQuery -> Looker
It all links up really well and with ease.
One instance holds many projects.
Separating data into datamarts or datameshes is really easy in BigQuery, since one BigQuery instance can hold multiple projects; which are isolated collections of datasets.
Please expand the availability of documentation, tutorials, and community forums to provide developers with comprehensive support and guidance on using Google BigQuery effectively for their projects.
If possible, simplify the pricing model and provide clearer cost breakdowns to help users understand and plan for expenses when using Google BigQuery. Also, some cost reduction is welcome.
It still misses the process of importing data into Google BigQuery. Probably, by improving compatibility with different data formats and sources and reducing the complexity of data ingestion workflows, it can be made to work.
We have to use this product as its a 3rd party supplier choice to utilise this product for their data side backend so will not be likely we will move away from this product in the future unless the 3rd party supplier decides to change data vendors.
Hive is a very good big data analysis and ad-hoc query platform, which supports scaling also. The BI processes can be easily integrated with Hadoop via the Hive. It can deal with a much larger data set that traditional RDBMS can not. It is a "must-have" component of the big data domain.
If the team looking to use Apache Spark is not used to debug and tweak settings for jobs to ensure maximum optimizations, it can be frustrating. However, the documentation and the support of the community on the internet can help resolve most issues. Moreover, it is highly configurable and it integrates with different tools (eg: it can be used by dbt core), which increase the scenarios where it can be used
I think overall it is easy to use. I haven't done anything from the development side but an more of an end user of reporting tables built in Google BigQuery. I connect data visualization tools like Tableau or Power BI to the BigQuery reporting tables to analyze trends and create complex dashboards.
I have never had any significant issues with Google Big Query. It always seems to be up and running properly when I need it. I cannot recall any times where I received any kind of application errors or unplanned outages. If there were any they were resolved quickly by my IT team so I didn't notice them.
I think Google Big Query's performance is in the acceptable range. Sometimes larger datasets are somewhat sluggish to load but for most of our applications it performs at a reasonable speed. We do have some reports that include a lot of complex calculations and others that run on granular store level data that so sometimes take a bit longer to load which can be frustrating.
Apache Hive is a FOSS project and its open source. We need not definitely comment on anything about the support of open source and its developer community. But, it has got tremendous developer support, awesome documentation. I would justify the fact that much support can be gathered from the community backup.
1. It integrates very well with scala or python. 2. It's very easy to understand SQL interoperability. 3. Apache is way faster than the other competitive technologies. 4. The support from the Apache community is very huge for Spark. 5. Execution times are faster as compared to others. 6. There are a large number of forums available for Apache Spark. 7. The code availability for Apache Spark is simpler and easy to gain access to. 8. Many organizations use Apache Spark, so many solutions are available for existing applications.
BigQuery can be difficult to support because it is so solid as a product. Many of the issues you will see are related to your own data sets, however you may see issues importing data and managing jobs. If this occurs, it can be a challenge to get to speak to the correct person who can help you.
Besides Hive, I have used Google BigQuery, which is costly but have very high computation speed. Amazon Redshift is the another product, I used in my recent organisation. Both Redshift and BigQuery are managed solution whereas Hive needs to be managed
Spark in comparison to similar technologies ends up being a one stop shop. You can achieve so much with this one framework instead of having to stitch and weave multiple technologies from the Hadoop stack, all while getting incredibility performance, minimal boilerplate, and getting the ability to write your application in the language of your choosing.
PowerBI can connect to GA4 for example but the data processing is more complicated and it takes longer to create dashboards. Azure is great once the data import has been configured but it's not an easy task for small businesses as it is with BigQuery.
We have continued to expand out use of Google Big Query over the years. I'd say its flexibility and scalability is actually quite good. It also integrates well with other tools like Tableau and Power BI. It has served the needs of multiple data sources across multiple departments within my company.
Google Support has kindly provide individual support and consultants to assist with the integration work. In the circumstance where the consultants are not present to support with the work, Google Support Helpline will always be available to answer to the queries without having to wait for more than 3 days.
Previously, running complex queries on our on-premise data warehouse could take hours. Google BigQuery processes the same queries in minutes. We estimate it saves our team at least 25% of their time.
We can target our marketing campaigns very easily and understand our customer behaviour. It lets us personalize marketing campaigns and product recommendations and experience at least a 20% improvement in overall campaign performance.
Now, we only pay for the resources we use. Saved $1 million annually on data infrastructure and data storage costs compared to our previous solution.