29 posts tagged with "Iceberg"

In our previous post, we covered how to control Iceberg file sizes at write time and how to fix small file problems with Iceberg's table maintenance procedures. The conclusion was clear: the tools are excellent, but manually scheduling and managing maintenance across dozens or hundreds of tables does not scale.

This post is about the layer that solves that problem: Apache Polaris — the open-source Iceberg catalog that introduces policy-based table maintenance, letting you define optimization rules once and have them applied automatically across your entire lakehouse.

Every data engineer who has worked with Apache Iceberg at scale has hit the same wall: query performance that mysteriously degrades over time. The dashboards that used to load in two seconds now take twenty. The Spark jobs that processed in minutes now crawl for an hour. The root cause, almost always, is the same — thousands of tiny files have silently accumulated in your Iceberg tables.

The small file problem is not unique to Iceberg. But Iceberg gives you an unusually powerful set of tools to prevent it at the write layer and fix it at the maintenance layer. The catch is that most teams never configure these controls properly — or do not even know they exist.

Something unusual is happening in the data industry. Companies that have spent years — and billions of dollars — building proprietary storage formats are now rallying behind an open-source table format created at Netflix. Snowflake, Databricks, Dremio, Starburst, Teradata, Google BigQuery, AWS — the list keeps growing. They are not just adding Iceberg as a checkbox feature. They are making it central to their platform strategy.

If you are a data engineer, you have almost certainly heard of Apache Iceberg by now. But the more interesting question is not what Iceberg is — it is why every major vendor has decided that their own proprietary format is no longer enough.

In our previous post, we broke down the five hidden costs of running two compute engines in your lakehouse — the infrastructure duplication, the cost opacity, the metadata sync bugs, the skills fragmentation, and the governance headaches. We showed that this dual-engine tax can run $40,000+ per year for a mid-size data team.

The obvious question: why not just use Spark for everything?

The honest answer has always been: because Spark cannot deliver query results to BI tools fast enough. Not because Spark cannot execute the query — it usually can — but because the last mile of data delivery through traditional JDBC/ODBC protocols is painfully slow.

Arrow Flight SQL eliminates that bottleneck. And with it, the primary architectural reason for running a second query engine disappears.

Take an honest look at your data platform architecture. If you are running a lakehouse on AWS, there is a good chance it looks something like this: Spark clusters for ETL and data engineering, plus Trino (or Dremio, or Presto) clusters for analytics and BI queries. Two engines, two teams, two bills — all pointed at the same data.

This dual-runtime pattern has become the default architecture for most modern data platforms. And on the surface, it makes sense. Spark is great at processing data. Trino is great at querying it. Each engine solves a real problem.

But running two engines has hidden costs that most organizations never quantify — and once you add them up, the number is hard to ignore.

"Which platform is cheapest for Spark?" is one of the most common questions data teams ask — and one of the most misleading. The honest answer is: it depends entirely on your workload shape.

A platform that saves you thousands on large nightly batch jobs might quietly waste thousands on your fleet of small ETL runs. The billing model that looks transparent at first glance might hide costs in cold starts, minimum increments, or idle compute you never asked for.

In this post — Part 3 of our compute cost series — we compare Databricks, Amazon EMR, and Cazpian across three realistic workload scenarios. No hypotheticals. Real pricing. Real math.

In Part 1 of this series, we exposed the Small Job Tax — the hidden cost of cold starts, overprovisioned clusters, and per-job infrastructure overhead that silently drains data budgets. We showed that for many teams, more than half of their Spark compute spend goes to infrastructure bootstrapping, not actual data processing.

The natural follow-up question: what if you could eliminate that overhead entirely?

That is exactly what Cazpian Compute Pools are built to do.

Most data teams obsess over optimizing their biggest, most complex Spark jobs. Meanwhile, hundreds of tiny ETL jobs — each processing a few gigabytes — quietly rack up a bill that nobody questions.

We call it the Small Job Tax: the disproportionate cost of running lightweight workloads on infrastructure designed for heavy lifting. And for many organizations, it is the single largest source of wasted compute spend.

When we started building Cazpian, we had a choice of many different storage formats and compute engines. We chose Apache Iceberg and Apache Spark for three main reasons: