Apache Druid vs Apache Pinot
Compare and contrast Apache Druid and Apache Pinot by architecture, ingestion, queries, performance, and scalability.
Apache Druid vs Apache Pinot Architecture
Druid’s architecture employs nodes called data servers that are used for both ingestion and queries. High ingestion or query load can cause CPU and memory contention compared with Druid alternatives. Breaking apart the pre-packaged ingestion and query server components involves planning ahead and additional complexity, and is not dynamic.
Pinot is a real-time distributed OLAP datastore that ingests both batch and streaming data. It has a distributed systems architecture that scales both horizontally and vertically, but unlike alternative OLAP databases, it does not decouple storage and compute. It supports both self-managed and PaaS options.
Apache Druid vs Apache Pinot Ingestion
Druid has built-in connectors that manage ingestion from common data sources. Unlike some Druid competitors, it doesn’t support nested data, so data must be flattened at ingest. Denormalization is also required at ingest, increasing operational burden for certain use cases.
Pinot supports high-performance ingest from streaming data sources. Each table is either offline or real time. Real-time tables have a smaller retention period and scale based on ingestion rate while offline tables have a larger retention period and scale based on the amount of data. In order to persistently store the generated segments that make up a table, you will need to change controller and server configs to add deep storage.
Apache Druid vs Apache Pinot Performance
Druid is designed to make streaming data queryable as quickly as possible. JOINs are either impossible or incur a large performance penalty. Updates are only possible via batch jobs. Druid leverages data denormalization and write-time aggregation at ingestion to reduce query latency.
Like its competitors, Pinot can achieve sub-second query latency at high concurrency. However, this level of performance requires tuning, management, and deep expertise. Compared with the open-source version, the PaaS versions of Pinot address some of these issues, but similarly require expertise while making tradeoffs affecting query performance.
Apache Druid vs Apache Pinot Queries
Druid has a native JSON-based query language and provides Druid SQL as an alternative that translates into its native queries. JOINs are not recommended.
In Pinot, SQL-like queries are received by brokers and scatter the request between real-time and offline servers. The two tables then process requests, send results back to the broker, and responds with the result. Joins are limited, as is support for UDFs and subqueries, making Pinot more or less useful depending on the use case.
Apache Druid vs Apache Pinot Scalability
Druid users are exposed to complex decisions about the number and size of servers as clusters are scaled.
Pinot allows for vertical scaling by increasing CPU and memory for each node as well as horizontal scaling by adding additional nodes. Capacity planning is a time-consuming, iterative, and manual task. It involves load testing and tuning across multiple vectors including read QPS, write QPS, number of streaming partitions, daily data size, retention period, types of workloads, number and type of segments, and much more.