Data Lakehouse: A survey and experimental study
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
Efficient big data management is a dire necessity to manage the exponential growth in data generated by digital information systems to produce usable knowledge. Structured databases, data lakes, and warehouses have each provided a solution with varying degrees of success. However, a new and superior solution, the data Lakehouse, has emerged to extract actionable insights from unstructured data ingested from distributed sources. By combining the strengths of data warehouses and data lakes, the data Lakehouse can process and merge data quickly while ingesting and storing high-speed unstructured data with post-storage transformation and analytics capabilities. The Lakehouse architecture offers the necessary features for optimal functionality and has gained significant attention in the big data management research community. In this paper, we compare data lake, warehouse, and lakehouse systems, highlight their strengths and shortcomings, identify the desired features to handle the evolving challenges in big data management and analysis and propose an advanced data Lakehouse architecture. We also demonstrate the performance of three state-of-the-art data management systems namely HDFS data lake, Hive data warehouse, and Delta lakehouse in managing data for analytical query responses through an experimental study.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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