The data lake was once heralded as the future, an infinitely scalable reservoir for all our raw data, promising to transform it into actionable insights. This was a logical progression from databases and data warehouses, each step driven by the increasing demand for scalability.

Yet, in embracing the data lake's scale and flexibility, we overlooked a critical difference. The issue wasn't the reliability of object storage systems that underpin data lakes; they excel at storing individual files. At the individual data file/object level, they are atomic, consistent, and highly reliable.

Instead, the problem arose from a simple disconnect. Our expectations for analytics, shaped by 40 years of database evolution, are built around the reliable table abstraction. Simply treating a directory of independent files as a table was a critical oversimplification, as this approach fundamentally fails to provide the required guarantees like transactional consistency and predictable structure for a collection of objects, even if the individual files themselves are reliable.

Apache Iceberg successfully integrated the robust capabilities of traditional databases directly into the data lake. It achieved this by enabling the data lake to adhere to established database principles. This post will detail that progression: from the standards set by databases, through the initial shortcomings of data lakes, to how Iceberg ultimately fulfilled its core objective.

The Unrelenting Quest for Scale: From Database to Data Lake

The journey to manage ever-increasing data volumes began with relational databases. Databases like Oracle, PostgreSQL, and MySQL provided essential structure through SQL and, critically, reliability via ACID transactions, forming the foundation of business operations.

However, as businesses accumulated more historical data, performing complex analytics directly on these relational databases proved too slow. This led to the emergence of the Data Warehouse, a system designed explicitly for analytical tasks. While excellent for structured reporting, the internet age introduced a new challenge: the sheer volume and variety of modern data, including clickstreams, application logs, social media feeds, and sensor data. Data warehouses proved to be expensive and difficult to scale, as well as being simply ill-equipped to handle such diverse data types.

The concept of the Data Lake represented a significant leap forward. By their nature, data lakes can efficiently store both structured and unstructured data. However, the true proliferation of data lakes occurred with the advent of high-performance, cloud-native object storage. This transformative approach, offered by major public cloud providers like AWS with its S3 service, as well as powerful S3-compatible platforms deployable on-premises for AI and other demanding workloads, such as Minio AIStor, addresses the fundamental issues of data warehouses.

Crucially, despite this revolution in storage platforms, user expectations remained constant. Decades of experience with databases had ingrained certain core guarantees, which users continued to anticipate from the new data lake paradigm when used for interpreting the data as tables. Users expected the same core guarantees from the new data lake paradigm, when interpreting data as tables, that decades of database experience had ingrained. The central question then becomes: what exactly were these fundamental guarantees that had previously been taken for granted?

The Enduring Promise of a "Table": Beyond Rows and Columns

For decades, the humble "table" in data systems has represented more than just a collection of rows and columns; it embodies a foundational contract of guarantees that underpins reliable data analysis. This "table abstraction" rests upon three essential pillars:

• Reliability & Consistency (ACID Guarantees): This cornerstone ensures data integrity and trustworthiness. It encompasses:
  • Atomicity: Operations either complete entirely or fail altogether, leaving no partial changes.
  • Consistency: Data always transitions from one valid state to another, maintaining its inherent rules.
  • Isolation: Concurrent operations execute independently, preventing interference and ensuring accurate results.
  • Durability: Once committed, data remains persistently stored, even in the event of system failures or power outages. Without these assurances, a financial report becomes merely a collection of unreliable figures.
• Predictable Structure (Schema): A table has a defined blueprint that specifies column names and their corresponding data types. This enforced schema guarantees, for instance, that a "price" column will consistently contain numerical values, enabling accurate calculations. Furthermore, the system gracefully manages schema evolution, ensuring that adding new columns doesn't disrupt existing queries.
• Performance & Efficiency: Far from being a mere data container, a database table is an intelligent structure enriched with indexes and metadata. This sophisticated design empowers the query engine to pinpoint specific information swiftly, without the need to scan entire datasets. This capability is what makes querying terabytes of data practically feasible.

These guarantees were not mere features; they fundamentally defined what constituted a reliable table. This inevitably leads to a crucial question: if the ultimate objective has always been to achieve this dependable, table-like behavior, why then did we initially resort to simple file collections?

The Enduring Relevance of Tables in an Object-Storage-Based Data Lake

Despite data being stored as individual files (e.g., Parquet or ORC) for scalability in data lakes, the fundamental unit of analysis for businesses remains the table. No one performs analytics on a single Parquet file; instead, analysis is conducted on logical entities, such as "customer" or "sales" tables. SQL, the ubiquitous language of data, is designed entirely around this table abstraction.

Therefore, even with data physically distributed as a collection of files, the overarching objective has always been to interpret this collection as a single, unified table. This approach enables users to leverage the full analytical capabilities of SQL.

This inherent desire to overlay the familiar table structure onto scalable, object-based storage introduced a foundational challenge. While conceptually sound, the technical limitations of treating a simple directory of Parquet files as a table quickly exposed significant and unavoidable flaws.

The Directory Dilemma: Why a Collection of Files Isn't a True Table

Object storage ensures the integrity of individual files, but a "table" requires guarantees across an entire collection of them. Simply using a directory as a table is a significant oversimplification that fails under real-world analytical demands. Consider these scenarios:

Scenario 1: Concurrent Read Issues

Imagine a finance team generating a crucial quarterly revenue report at 9:05 AM, scanning the `/sales` directory. Concurrently, a batch ETL job initiates a daily update, adding new sales files and removing corrected order files. Without transactional boundaries, the query engine might list some files before the update and others after partial completion.

Result: The report is inaccurate, either double-counting revenue or missing necessary corrections.

Scenario 2: Taming Streaming Chaos

Imagine a real-time analytics pipeline ingesting thousands of click events per second into a data lake. If your "table" is merely a directory listing, its state fluctuates constantly—thousands of times per second. This makes it impossible for an analyst to obtain consistent, repeatable query results. What's needed is the ability to control when new data becomes visible, committing changes periodically to offer a stable snapshot.

Result: Analytical queries are non-deterministic and effectively useless for reporting. An analyst running the same aggregation query twice, just seconds apart, will get two different answers. It becomes impossible to perform reliable joins or create consistent business intelligence dashboards, as the underlying dataset is constantly shifting.

Scenario 3: The Failed Job Catastrophe

A classic failure scenario occurs when a job responsible for updating user profiles crashes. For instance, if it's meant to delete 500 old Parquet files and create 500 new ones, and the server fails after deleting 480 files but only writing 300 new ones, the table becomes irrecoverably damaged. This necessitates manual intervention from a data engineer to rectify the issue.

Result: The table is left in a state of permanent corruption. 180 user profiles are completely lost (deleted but not replaced), 300 have been updated, and 20 old profiles remain. The data is now inconsistent and unreliable, demanding a difficult and often manual data recovery process to fix.

Ultimately, these issues stem from a fundamental lack of control. What's truly needed is a mechanism to definitively declare: "The current, valid state of my analytical sales table comprises these specific 20 files, and nothing else." You need the power to explicitly control when that state changes, enabling commands like: "Now, transactionally update the table to include these 10 additional files." This explicit control directly contrasts with the chaotic, implicit model, where the table's state is uncontrollably defined by the files present in a directory at any given moment.

This demand for explicit, transactional control isn't just a convenience; it's the bedrock of a trustworthy system. But why is this specific guarantee of multi-file atomicity so crucial?

The Indispensable Role of Multi-File Atomicity

The scenarios previously discussed underscore a critical requirement for any dependable data system: multi-file atomicity. This isn't merely a technical nicety; it's the bedrock upon which reliable data operations are built. Multi-file atomicity ensures that changes spanning multiple files are committed as a single, indivisible operation, guaranteeing an all-or-nothing outcome.

Its importance is evident in several key areas:

• Establishing Trust: Atomicity provides a consistent and complete view of data for analysts and applications. This consistency means that a report generated today will align with one generated tomorrow (assuming no new data commits), thereby enabling sound data-driven decisions.
• Enabling Reliable Automation: Automated data pipelines—be it for ETL, machine learning feature engineering, or data replication—rely heavily on the ability to read a stable version of a table and confidently commit changes back to it. Without atomicity, these automated processes become fragile and susceptible to silent data corruption.
• Streamlining Data Engineering: The absence of atomic commits forces data engineers to devise intricate and defensive workarounds, such as writing to temporary directories followed by slow and risky "rename" operations, in an attempt to mimic transactional behavior. This introduces significant complexity and still carries inherent safety risks.

In essence, multi-file atomicity transforms a mere collection of files into a queryable, trustworthy, and manageable database table. The traditional approach was flawed, and the demand for atomic, multi-file transactions is unequivocal. The challenge then becomes: how do we construct this essential database-like ledger on top of a fundamentally stateless object store? This is precisely where Apache Iceberg offers a solution.

Iceberg: Bringing Database Intelligence to Data Lakes

Iceberg addresses data lake challenges by defining an intelligent metadata specification, which acts as a smart blueprint for organizing and tracking data files. This specification is not a query engine or a service with its own computational logic. Instead, it provides all the necessary information for external engines like Spark and Trino to deliver database-like guarantees.

This metadata structure enables:

• Transactional Consistency: It creates a definitive record of which files constitute the table at any given time.
• Reliable Schema Blueprint: It ensures data quality and evolution.
• Detailed Data Map: It allows for high-performance queries without wasteful scanning.

Essentially, Iceberg provides the architectural plan, and the query engines read that plan to build and interact with a reliable table.

What Does an Iceberg Table Actually Look Like?

An Iceberg table's physical structure is a hierarchical arrangement of metadata files that reside alongside your actual data files (like Parquet or ORC). This can be visualized as a book's table of contents and index, organized in layers:

1. The Catalog Pointer: A central catalog (e.g., Hive Metastore or Nessie) at the top holds a single pointer to the table's current master metadata file.
2. The Metadata File (.metadata.json): This serves as the main entry point, containing the table's current schema, partition rules, and a pointer to the current manifest list.
3. The Manifest List: This file lists all the manifest files that constitute the current version of the table (a "snapshot").
4. Manifest Files: Each manifest file tracks a subset of the actual data files and stores statistics about them.
5. Data Files: These are your actual Parquet, ORC, or Avro files, containing the data rows.

Understanding this physical layout of metadata files helps to grasp how Iceberg delivers crucial database guarantees that were previously lacking.

Achieving Atomicity with a Master Pointer

Unlike traditional directory-based table definitions, Iceberg relies on a single, authoritative master pointer file. When changes are made, Iceberg first prepares the new data files and then generates a new master file that reflects the updated version of the table. The final step is an atomic swap, where the table's main pointer is instantly switched from the old master file to the new one.

This all-or-nothing switch, known as the commit, is executed using an atomic compare-and-swap (CAS) operation against a central catalog. The standardized Iceberg Catalog API facilitates this crucial step. This open API provides a common language for tools to safely and securely commit changes, ensuring interoperability between various catalog backends (e.g., Hive Metastore, Nessie, JDBC databases) and preventing vendor lock-in at the management layer. Soon, AIStor will natively integrate these catalog API endpoints, offering a streamlined, secure, and scalable approach to Iceberg table management.

This mimics Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC) and utilizes a transaction log. A single, atomic action commits a transaction, making a new and consistent version of the data visible. This is a key database lesson.

A Permanent Blueprint for Schema Resolution

Iceberg, much like a traditional database, maintains a formal and evolving schema for its tables. Each column is assigned a unique, permanent ID. When a column is renamed, Iceberg updates the name associated with that ID, recognizing it as the same column and preventing ambiguity. This mirrors a database's System Catalog, which serves as a definitive record of all tables and columns.

Solving Performance with a Data Map

Iceberg optimizes query performance by maintaining a metadata layer that acts as a data map for your tables. This layer contains statistics about the contents of each file. When a query includes a WHERE clause, the engine first consults this map, enabling it to efficiently identify and ignore irrelevant files, thus avoiding costly full-table scans.

This approach mirrors the use of database indexes and table statistics for query optimization in traditional databases. While Iceberg's indexing capabilities are still evolving, its design clearly draws inspiration from these well-established database principles.

Iceberg's brilliance lies not in creating a new rulebook, but in meticulously adapting established database principles to the unique environment of data lake files. This high-level overview illustrates how each of Iceberg's solutions directly aligns with a time-tested database concept. By building upon these proven lessons, Iceberg provides a robust foundation that not only rectifies past issues but also paves the way for a more potent architectural pattern in the future of data.

Empowering Your Lakehouse: The On-Prem Advantage

The modern lakehouse, built on open standards like Iceberg on high-performance object storage, champions the crucial separation of compute and storage. This innovative stack eliminates vendor lock-in, providing the flexibility to utilize various query engines, including Apache Spark, Trino, and Apache Flink, for data analysis and processing. However, as Iceberg analytics grow in sophistication, with thousands of concurrent SQL queries demanding value, the underlying object storage can become a performance bottleneck.

This is where on-premise or hybrid strategies offer a significant competitive edge. For high-concurrency workloads, on-premise object stores, such as MinIO AIStor, provide a performance ceiling far exceeding typical public cloud offerings.

Key Advantages of On-Premise Iceberg Lakehouse:

• Exceptional Performance at Scale: Modern on-premise storage, utilizing standards like S3 over RDMA, enables direct memory-to-memory data transfers. This bypasses the CPU, achieving terabit speeds crucial for large-scale Iceberg metadata operations and low-latency AI training, ensuring storage keeps pace with the demands of analytics.
• Cost-Effectiveness and Enhanced Control: Beyond performance, the financial and governance benefits are significant. Managed cloud services, while convenient, can lead to prohibitively expensive and unpredictable bills at scale, primarily due to data egress and API call charges. On-premise solutions offer a financially sound alternative with a predictable Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), particularly for workloads exceeding 5 PB. Furthermore, for compliance and governance purposes, highly sensitive data such as patient records, financial transactions, and proprietary AI models must remain within an organization's infrastructure, ensuring true data sovereignty.

These advantages are not theoretical. Leading financial institutions, automotive providers, and healthcare pioneers operate their Iceberg lakehouse on-premise using MinIO AIStor. They keep highly sensitive data on-premises with AIStor. These production deployments demonstrate that the modern data lakehouse can be customized to meet specific priorities regarding performance, cost, and control.

Rebuilding Trust in Data Lakes

 Apache Iceberg integrated four decades of robust database engineering wisdom with the scale and flexibility of data lakes, bridging a critical gap. It established a trustworthy groundwork, demonstrating that the trade-off between scale and reliability is unnecessary. We can, and must, expect both.

Please feel free to reach out to us at hello@min.io or on our Slack.