We used Surprise Kit for one of the other research works. It is more fine-tuned to Recommendation systems and their algorithms. Apache Spark has MLlib for majority of ML problems. Where as software like Surprse Kit - it suitable for a specific task of Recommendations only.
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 …
There are a few alternatives that can do the same transformation and aggregation like Apache Spark can do but most of them are not able to perform parallel computation. For example, pandas is a really good tool to do that but not parallelized; However, there are some tools that …
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.
1. Apache Spark is almost 100 % faster than Hadoop. 2. Apache Spark is more stable than Amazon EMR. 3. The end to end distributed machine library is more robust in Apache Spark.
Databricks uses Spark as a foundation, and is also a great platform. It does bring several add-ons, which we did not feel needed by the time we evaluated - and haven't needed since then. One interesting plus in our opinion was the engineering support, which is great depending …
It is easy to learn, read and to maintain. It brings the best of the Ruby on Rails framework from Java that helps to create a web service so easily. Communication is one of the most distinctive features of Apache Spark compared to alternative products. You are able to …
We evaluated SAS alongside with Apache Spark but during the course of proof of concept found that Apache Spark was able to support the hadoop eco-system and hadoop file system much better. It was much faster at that time while having the ability to process data quickly for the …
Consultor Tecnico - Java Developer and Php Developer.
Chose Apache Spark
I prefer Apache Spark compared to Hadoop, since in my experience Spark has more usability and comes equipped with simple APIs for Scala, Python, Java and Spark SQL, as well as provides feedback in REPL format on the commands. At the same time, Apache Spark seems to have the …
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 …
vs MapRedce, it was faster and easier to manage. Especially for Machine Learning, where MapReduce is lacking. Also Apache Storm was slower and didn't scale as much as Spark does. Spark elasticity was easier to apply compared to storm and MapReduce. managing resources for …
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 …
There are a few newer frameworks for general processing like Flink, Beam, frameworks for streaming like Samza and Storm, and traditional Map-Reduce. I think Spark is at a sweet spot where its clearly better than Map-Reduce for many workflows yet has gotten a good amount of …
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 …
Elasticsearch has a steep learning curve, but it is the best in terms of customization and use cases it can cover most of the business needs. The other tools might be easier to integrate with and start seeing results, but you will end up having issues when you need customized …
Elasticsearch is relatedly cheaper the splunk. Opensearch is good and we migrated some data into it but the critical data stays in elasticsearch as it has formal support.
They all have their specific pros and cons. Elastic was actually initially brought in to provide less expensive functionality to Splunk, and Splunk use cases. Grafana was brought in to provide less expensive visualizations compared to Splunk and Elastic...I would recommend …
Elasticsearch is the most well-known and supported free data platform that we identified. We are taking advantage of community knowledge and practices. In terms of flexibility and breadth of use cases no other competitor came close to Elasticsearch. We've tried Solr in the past …
Elasticsearch brings the capacity to grow data ingest and provides 24/7 visibility into critical services across IT and Business teams. With Elasticsarch, specialized support teams can easily view all the relevant information by using real-time dashboards, and can immediately …
Elasticsearch and Solr are both based on Lucene, but the user community for Elasticsearch is much stronger, and setting up a cluster is easier. Splunk is very well suited for Log indexing and searching but is not nearly as flexible as Elasticsearch. Couchbase is a great NoSQL …
Search and analytics capabilities of Elasticsearch are superior to its competitors. Being open source, it is a cheaper and faster solution than other competitors. Installation is straightforward and it can be potentially deployed anywhere and everywhere! There is no need for …
Faster, better, more efficient. There was no comparison in Elasticsearch vs LEM. AlienVault was decent but too expensive for what it does compared to Elastic. The only competitor I'd consider as in the same ballpark in the SIEM world is Splunk. Save yourself the money and get a …
I think Elasticseach works less great compared to Splunk. Mainly the way the Splunk search head works is vastly superior to the way the Elasticsearch query language works. Furthermore, the Splunk architecture is in my opinion easier to roll out and scale-up. Splunk also has a …
Elasticsearch is very well packed in a broad set of features, ranging from customization capabilities to security and add-ons, and also comes with a great visualization tool named Kibana. Most of the competitors are strong in some of these areas, but I know of no other that's …
Almost no one uses Solr anymore--most have migrated to Elasticsearch. I've never tried it myself but I heard Solr is much more difficult to configure and because it doesn't use a REST API, it locks you into Java and XML. XML--ick! Lucene: Elasticsearch is built using Lucene …
From my perspective, there is nothing currently on the marker better than Datadog, but unfortunately, that's a pricey product, Elasticsearch deliver us part of Datadog functionalities being cheaper. Fluentd as a service (provided by the company behind Fluentd) looks like a …
Previously, we used Microsoft SQL Server's full-text search. Elasticsearch is faster and that includes searching and indexing and re-indexing the catalog of products.
With Elasticsearch you can integrate a lot of data sources. It can act as a small DataLake where you can put different kinds of data and extract important insights. With Splunk, additional to elevated costs of licensing and hardware, you need to have expert engineers to address …
All database systems have things they are good at, and things they aren't as good at. Riak/SOLR is great as a K/V store, but SOLR cannot handle requests as fast as ElasticSearch. In fact, SOLR is the reason we had to migrate to ElasticSearch. Redis is great at SET operations …
ES does not compete with the above packages but compliments them. By automating and mining logs, you are able to get a sense of the business process, marketing data or whatever else you need to capture and mine. The potential energy stored within Elasticsearch makes it a great …
Elasticsearch is the most powerful and easy to use platform in this market. It's open source which makes enhancements very possible and also makes customization something that is commonplace. We're able to create custom modules to pull data from both log and config files, which …
As far as we are concerned, Elasticsearch is the gold standard and we have barely evaluated any alternatives. You could consider it an alternative to a relational or NoSQL database, so in cases where those suffice, you don't need Elasticsearch. But if you want powerful …
When we first evaluated Elasticsearch, we compared it with alternatives like traditional RDBMS products (Postgres, MySQL) as well as other noSQL solutions like Cassandra & MongoDB. For our use case, Elasticsearch delivered on two fronts. First, we got a world-class search …
Apache Spark has rich APIs for regular data transformations or for ML workloads or for graph workloads, whereas other systems may not such a wide range of support. Choose it when you need to perform data transformations for big data as offline jobs, whereas use MongoDB-like distributed database systems for more realtime queries.
Elasticsearch is really well suited for searching text (Natural Language Processing) and you can fine tune the searches and scoring very well. I like the ability to find Significant Terms in the Index, where you can find aggregations that are really relevant to a specific search. It also allows for queries to lead to new queries via aggregations which is great for navigating your data. It is less suited to doing more complex aggregations where slices of data are required to be processing using guassian normalizations. And doing searches which join different documents is very very hard, and requires serious thought on how to denormalize data.
It performs a conventional disk-based process when the data sets are too large to fit into memory, which is very useful because, regardless of the size of the data, it is always possible to store them.
It has great speed and ability to join multiple types of databases and run different types of analysis applications. This functionality is super useful as it reduces work times
Apache Spark uses the data storage model of Hadoop and can be integrated with other big data frameworks such as HBase, MongoDB, and Cassandra. This is very useful because it is compatible with multiple frameworks that the company has, and thus allows us to unify all the processes.
Setting Java memory thresholds can be a pain for those not accustomed to things like Eden Space & Old Generation which can lead to over allocation, or more likely, under allocation. Apache Solr had a similar issue. It would be nice if the program would take an extra step and dogfood it's own advice by analyzing the system & processes to return a solid recommendation for that configuration. The proper configuration information is outlined in the documentation, it would be nice if that was automated.
The only health check that ElasticSearch reports back is a "red" status without any real solid information about what is going on, though its usually memory thresholds or disk I/O. I am currently on ElasticSearch 1.5 so that may have changed for newer versions. When the status goes "red", I as the administrator of the software, feel like I lose control of whats going on which should rarely happen. Something more verbose would eliminate that.
This is more of a critique of the ElasticStack in general. The whole top to bottom stack is starting to get feature creep with things that are better suited in other software and increasing the barrier for entry for people to get started with setting up a robust logging infrastructure. ElasticSearch as a storage search engine, is pretty streamlined, but I can see that the tools that comprise the ELK Stack are going to require a certification with constant study at some point. During major release for Logstash a while back, it literally took a month to learn a new language because Elastic completely changed the syntax. For a medium sized organization of only a couple of admins, that is a pretty high bar where time is money. They really should work on refining/automating the tools & search engine they have, instead of shoehorning/changing things on to an already rock solid foundation.
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
To get started with Elasticsearch, you don't have to get very involved in configuring what really is an incredibly complex system under the hood. You simply install the package, run the service, and you're immediately able to begin using it. You don't need to learn any sort of query language to add data to Elasticsearch or perform some basic searching. If you're used to any sort of RESTful API, getting started with Elasticsearch is a breeze. If you've never interacted with a RESTful API directly, the journey may be a little more bumpy. Overall, though, it's incredibly simple to use for what it's doing under the covers.
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.
We've only used it as an opensource tooling. We did not purchase any additional support to roll out the elasticsearch software. When rolling out the application on our platform we've used the documentation which was available online. During our test phases we did not experience any bugs or issues so we did not rely on support at all.
We used Surprise Kit for one of the other research works. It is more fine-tuned to Recommendation systems and their algorithms. Apache Spark has MLlib for majority of ML problems. Where as software like Surprse Kit - it suitable for a specific task of Recommendations only
Elasticsearch is the most well-known and supported free data platform that we identified. We are taking advantage of community knowledge and practices. In terms of flexibility and breadth of use cases no other competitor came close to Elasticsearch. We've tried Solr in the past be we encountered issues which were deal-breaking for us. MongoDB - it just did not pass our evaluation parameters as a main data platform. We still use it for smaller purposes, though.
Faster turn around on feature development, we have seen a noticeable improvement in our agile development since using Spark.
Easy adoption, having multiple departments use the same underlying technology even if the use cases are very different allows for more commonality amongst applications which definitely makes the operations team happy.
Performance, we have been able to make some applications run over 20x faster since switching to Spark. This has saved us time, headaches, and operating costs.
I am not in finance and I suspect even if I was this would be hard to measure. But for sure, Elasticsearch has enabled us to have the most flexible data model in the industry for our customer's data, and in doing so we have attracted many many technical customers and got much of their $$$.
One problem with Elasticsearch is that because it runs on the JVM, there can be some stop-the-world JVM garbage collections happening that can take down nodes and reduce indexing speed. The solution for that tends to be "let's just upgrade the CPU on that machine". And before you know it you are paying $$$ because this'll happen with 40+ machines.
On the other hand, I do think that ES is more efficient than other systems and so it requires fewer nodes to keep it highly tolerant and available, so we probably saved some money that way.