From Data Warehouse to Lakehouse: A Comparative Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital information systems currently generate a vast amount of data every minute which emphasizes the continuing need to advance big data management systems with efficient data ingestion and knowledge extraction capabilities. To address the ‘big data’ problems due to high volume, velocity, variety, and veracity, data management systems evolved from structured databases to big data storage systems, graph databases, data warehouses, and data lakes but each solution has its strengths and shortcomings. The need to produce actionable knowledge fast from unstructured data ingested from distributed sources requires a marriage of data warehouses and data lakes to create a data Lakehouse (LH). The objective is to use the strengths of the data warehouse in producing insights fast from processed merged data, and of the data lake in ingesting and storing high-speed unstructured data with post-storage transformation and analytics capabilities. In this paper, we present a comparative review of the existing data warehouse and data lake technology to highlight their strengths and weaknesses and propose the desired and necessary features of the LH architecture, which has recently gained a lot of attention in the big data management research community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.084 | 0.062 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it