Clickhouse vs Athena

A detailed comparison

Compare Clickhouse vs Athena by the following set of categories:

Clickhouse was originally developed at Yandex, the Russian search engine, as an OLAP engine for low latency analytics. It was built as an on-premise solution with coupled storage & compute, and a large variety of tuning options in the form of indexes and and merge trees. Clickhouse’s architecture is famous for its focus on performance and low-latency queries. The tradeoff is that it is considered very difficult to work with. SQL support is very limited, and tuning/running it requires significant engineering resources.

Athena is serverless and built on a decoupled storage and compute architecture that queries data directly in S3, without the need to ingest/copy the data. It runs in multi-tenancy with shared resources. Users do not have control over the compute resources Athena chooses to allocate per query from the shared resource pool.

Clickhouse vs Athena - Architecture

The biggest difference among cloud data warehouses are whether they separate storage and compute, how much they isolate data and compute, and what clouds they can run on.

Clickhouse doesn’t offer any dedicated scaling features or mechanisms. While it can deliver linearly scalable performance for some types of queries, scaling itself has to be done manually. Hardware is self-managed in Clickhouse. This means that to scale you would have to provision a cluster and migrate.

Athena is a shared multi-tenant resource, with no guarantees on the amount or availability of the resources allocated for your queries. From a data volume perspective, it can scale to large volumes, but large data volumes can suffer from very long run times and frequent time outs. Query concurrency is maxed at 20. If scalability is a top priority, Athena is probably not the best choice.

Clickhouse vs Athena - Scalability

There are three big differences among data warehouses and query engines that limit scalability: decoupled storage and compute, dedicated resources, and continuous ingestion.

Clickhouse is famous for being one of the fastest local runtimes ever built for OLAP workloads. Its columnar storage, compression and indexing capabilities make it a consistent leader in benchmarks. Its lack of support for standard SQL and lack of query optimizer means that it’s less suitable for traditional BI workloads, and more suitable for engineering managed workloads. While fast, it requires a lot of tuning and optimization.

Athena (and Presto) are designed to query data where it is, sacrificing storage-compute optimizations. This makes it very convenient for easy and immediate querying but at the expense of performance. This typically puts Athena behind cloud data warehouses in terms of performance. But Athena still does relatively well in performance benchmarks, especially when external storage is managed by experts. While it supports partitions, there is no support for indexing, and together with the fact that resources are pooled from a shared multi-tenant service, low-latency and consistent performance are not Athena’s sweet spot. A cloud data warehouse be more performant better than Athena in most cases.

Clickhouse vs Athena - Performance

Performance is the biggest challenge with most data warehouses today.
While decoupled storage and compute architectures improved scalability and simplified administration, for most data warehouses it introduced two bottlenecks; storage, and compute. Most modern cloud data warehouses fetch entire partitions over the network instead of just fetching the specific data needed for each query. While many invest in caching, most do not invest heavily in query optimization. Most vendors also have not improved continuous ingestion or semi-structured data analytics performance, both of which are needed for operational and customer-facing use cases.

Clickhouse was not designed to be a data warehouse, but rather a low-latency query execution runtime. Managing it typically requires significant engineering overhead. Hence, it’s a good fit for engineering managed operational use cases and customer-facing data apps, where low latency matters. It is not a good fit for a general purpose data warehouse, nor for Ad-Hoc analytics or ELT.

Athena is a great choice for Ad-Hoc analytics. You can keep the data where it is, and start querying without worrying about hardware or pretty much anything else, given that Athena is serverless and takes care of everything behind the scenes. However, it is not a great fit when you need consistent and fast query performance, and/or high concurrency. This is why it is typically not the best choice for operational and customer-facing applications. It can be also easily and flexibly used for batch processing, which is often leveraged for ML use cases.

Clickhouse vs Athena - Use cases

There are a host of different analytics use cases that can be supported by a data warehouse. Look at your legacy technologies and their workloads, as well as the new possible use cases, and figure out which ones you will need to support in the next few years.

Compare other data warehouses

See all data warehouse comparisons ->

Talk to a Firebolt solution architect