Comparing Data Storage: Parquet vs. Arrow

Parquet vs Arrow

Data storage formats have significant implications on how quickly and efficiently we can extract and process data. In today’s blog, we’re comparing two prominent data storage formats in the data science community — Apache Parquet and Apache Arrow.

Introduction

Apache Parquet

Apache Parquet is a columnar storage file format that’s optimized for use with Apache Hadoop due to its compression capabilities, schema evolution abilities, and compatibility with nested data structures. Parquet is particularly efficient when querying large, complex datasets as it’s designed to bring efficiency compared to row-based files like CSV.

Apache Arrow

Apache Arrow, on the other hand, is an in-memory data processing framework. It offers multi-language bindings, making it an excellent tool for sharing or moving complex data between systems or processes. Arrow’s in-memory columnar format enables efficient data access, making it a great choice for heavy analytics workloads.

Now let’s dive deeper into their capabilities, differences, and how they compare when put to use.

Comparing Parquet and Arrow

Data Storage

Parquet is a disk-based storage format, while Arrow is an in-memory format. Parquet is optimized for disk I/O and can achieve high compression ratios with columnar data. This is an advantage when working with large data sets where disk space might be a concern.

In contrast, Arrow is designed for high-speed in-memory data processing. It provides a standardized language-agnostic format for flat and hierarchical data, which is optimized for modern CPUs.

Schema Evolution

Both Parquet and Arrow support schema evolution, allowing you to add, remove, or modify columns. This is especially valuable when working with large datasets that can change over time. However, schema evolution in Parquet can sometimes be complex because changes are handled at the file level and different files might have different schemas.

Compression

Parquet shines when it comes to data compression. The columnar nature of Parquet allows it to compress data more efficiently, thereby reducing storage costs. Parquet supports various compression codecs such as Snappy, Gzip, and LZO.

Arrow, while also columnar, focuses on in-memory processing and doesn’t inherently provide data compression like Parquet.

Query Speed

While Parquet provides excellent storage efficiency, reading data from it could be slower compared to Arrow due to the decompression and decoding needed. On the other hand, Arrow, with its focus on in-memory processing, allows for faster data reads, which can lead to quicker query results, particularly for real-time analytical workloads.

Interoperability

Arrow’s cross-language capabilities make it an excellent choice for data exchange between different processes and systems. It supports multiple languages like Python, Java, C++, R, and JavaScript.

Parquet, while interoperable with a variety of data processing frameworks (like Hadoop, Apache Beam, Spark and others), doesn’t provide as wide a cross-language support as Arrow does.

Example: Code Sample

pip install pandas pyarrow

import pandas as pd
import pyarrow as pa
import pyarrow.parquet as pq
import time

# Generate a sample DataFrame
df = pd.DataFrame({
    'one': pd.Series(range(1000000)),
    'two': pd.Series(range(1000000, 2000000)),
    'three': pd.Series(range(2000000, 3000000))
})

# Writing and reading with Parquet
start = time.time()
df.to_parquet('data.parquet')
read_parquet = pd.read_parquet('data.parquet')
end = time.time()
print(f"Parquet Write + Read time: {end - start}")

# Convert the DataFrame to Arrow Table
table = pa.Table.from_pandas(df)

# Writing and reading with Arrow
start = time.time()
pq.write_table(table, 'data.arrow')
read_arrow = pq.read_table('data.arrow').to_pandas()
end = time.time()
print(f"Arrow Write + Read time: {end - start}")

Conclusion

In the end, the choice between Parquet and Arrow will depend on the specific requirements of your project.

If you’re working with massive datasets and storage efficiency is a concern, or your work is mostly batch analytics where query speed is not a major issue, Parquet might be a better choice due to its superior compression capabilities.

However, if you’re looking for real-time data processing, quicker query speeds and need to work across different languages or processes, Apache Arrow’s in-memory structure might be the way to go.

Remember, the best tool is the one that best fits your use case. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each data storage format is key to making the right decision.

Read More

The topics of data storage and processing are deep and expansive. There’s always more to learn about how different technologies can help you optimize your work. Here are some resources to dig deeper into Parquet, Arrow, and other related topics:

• Apache Parquet: The official documentation is always a good starting point. It provides an overview of the system, its features, and how to use them.
• Apache Arrow: Similar to the Parquet documentation, this is the official resource for Apache Arrow. It provides language-specific examples, making it a great starting point.
• Hadoop: Since Parquet integrates well with Hadoop, understanding Hadoop can help you understand how Parquet can fit into your data ecosystem.
• PyArrow: PyArrow is the Python implementation of Apache Arrow. The documentation provides Python-specific examples of using Arrow and Parquet.
• Dremio’s Blog on Arrow: This blog post provides an interesting overview of the history and uses of Apache Arrow.

Read Another Blog:

1. How to use Pandas with Arrow with Example
2. Comparision between Pickle and Arrow with Example

Follow Me On:

1. LinkedIn
2. Twitter