Apache Hive vs. Apache Kafka

Apache Hive shines for ad-hoc analysis and plugging into BI tools. Its SQL-like syntax allows for ease of use not for only for engineers but also for data analysts. Through our experience, there are probably more desirable tools to use if you are planning on integrating Hive into your processing pipeline.

Incentivized

For brokering messages, Confluent Kafka is well suited since it offers a managed solution ready to use. Scenarios where the solution is not very well suited are for example, where pricing is an issue. The solution costs quite a lot for basic usage (for example: for 3 clusters, pricing is above 100k$ a year).

Incentivized

• Hive syntax is almost like SQL, so for someone already familiar with SQL it takes almost no effort to pick up Hive.
• To be able to run map reduce jobs using json parsing and generate dynamic partitions in parquet file format.
• Simplifies your experience with Hadoop especially for non-technical/coding partners.

Incentivized

• Apache Kafka is able to handle a large number of I/Os (writes) using 3-4 cheap servers.
• It scales very well over large workloads and can handle extreme-scale deployments (eg. Linkedin with 300 billion user events each day).
• The same Kafka setup can be used as a messaging bus, storage system or a log aggregator making it easy to maintain as one system feeding multiple applications.

Incentivized

• Use Hive for analytical work loads. Write once and read many scenarios. Do not prefer updates and deletes.
• Behind scenes Hive creates map reduce jobs. Hive performance is slow compared to Apache Spark.
• Map reduce writes the intermediate outputs to dial whereas Spark operates in in-memory and uses DAG.

Incentivized

• The Kafka Tool is a community-made Java application that looks and feels from the past century.
• Logging can be confusing. This certainly shows when we have to do troubleshooting.
• Hybrid scenarios - pub/sub, but there are services in and outside a Kubernetes cluster. Then there are a ~3 options, but only 2 (the harder ones) are production-safe.

Incentivized

Since I do not know the second data warehouse solution that integrate with HDFS as well as Hive.

Kafka has suited our use case very well so far. Going forward we are planning to expand our platform manifold so the load on Kafka and our reliance on Kafka is going to increase only.

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.

Incentivized

Apache Kafka is highly recommended to develop loosely coupled, real-time processing applications. Also, Apache Kafka provides property based configuration. Producer, Consumer and broker contain their own separate property file

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

Support for Apache Kafka (if willing to pay) is available from Confluent that includes the same time that created Kafka at Linkedin so they know this software in and out. Moreover, Apache Kafka is well known and best practices documents and deployment scenarios are easily available for download. For example, from eBay, Linkedin, Uber, and NYTimes.

Incentivized

We have used a simple but necessary function such as merging certain data tables, which although they may be from different areas, complement each other or are necessary, you can use metadata if what you need is to validate the origin of your information and what impact it has, is also feasible.

Incentivized

Apache Kafka is built for scale. From high throughput and real-time data streaming, it has a strong advantage over RabbitMQ with its low latency. This put Apache Kafka at the forefront as the platform of choice for large datasets messaging and ensuring scalability when data scale up tremendously. RabbitMQ however has its strengths in traditional messaging. Routing and message delivery reliability are the bedrock of RabbitMQ and this is where RabbitMQ excels. In my previous workplace, RabbitMQ was of choice as reliability matters more than scale. In two words. Apache Kafka for scale, RabbitMQ for reliability. And for cloud deployment and large dataset messaging in what I am doing now, Apache Kafka is the default choice.

• Good ROI for being able to access data easily across the network, we have large amounts of data and this is a good system to access it
• Good ROI for being easy to learn how to use for new employees, not much time spent which saves costs
• Good ROI for being able to integrate with Spark and other applications, hence data can be analyzed through programs

Incentivized

• Positive: bursts of traffic on special holidays are easy to handle because Kafka can absorb and buffer all the messages we need to process long enough to let an understaffed set of back-end services catch up on processing. Hard to put a number to it but we probably save $5k a month having fewer machines running.
• Positive: makes decoupling the web and API services from the deeper back-end services easier by providing topics as an interface. This allowed us to split up our teams and have them develop independently of each other, speeding up software development.
• Negative: our engineers have made mistakes such as accidentally dropping a few thousand messages due to the CLI being confusing to use, and as a result a customer lost some of their precious data. I'd say that was more our fault than Kafka's though.

Incentivized