Achieving Sub-Millisecond Real-Time Analytics: An Architectural and Performance Analysis of Apache Pinot and ClickHouse

Posted on by uplatzblog

Executive Summary

The pursuit of true real-time analytics with sub-millisecond latency represents the frontier of data-driven applications, demanding not only exceptional query performance but also extreme data freshness. This report provides an exhaustive architectural and performance analysis of two leading open-source Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) databases, Apache Pinot and ClickHouse, in the context of this demanding requirement. The analysis deconstructs the term “sub-millisecond latency,” grounding it in the physical and software realities that govern performance, and concludes that while end-to-end sub-millisecond analytical queries are largely infeasible, latencies in the low single-digit to tens of milliseconds—perceived as instantaneous by users—are achievable through strategic architectural choices and aggressive optimization.

Apache Pinot emerges as a system architected for high-concurrency, user-facing analytical applications. Its distributed, componentized architecture, managed by Apache Helix, allows for independent scaling of query and data ingestion resources, making it exceptionally well-suited for large, multi-tenant environments. Pinot’s primary strategy for achieving low latency centers on a rich and versatile set of indexes, most notably the Star-Tree index, which pre-aggregates data to deliver predictable, sub-second query responses at massive scale. Its strengths lie in operational automation, elastic scalability, and robust, low-latency data ingestion from streaming sources like Apache Kafka.

ClickHouse, in contrast, is engineered for raw processing power and exceptional single-query performance. Its architecture maximizes hardware efficiency through a columnar storage format, the highly optimized MergeTree engine family, and a vectorized query execution model. ClickHouse’s optimization strategy relies heavily on ingest-time pre-computation using Materialized Views and Projections, which shift computational load from the read path to the write path. While simpler to deploy for single-node or small-cluster use cases, it presents greater operational complexity for scaling and management. It excels in internal business intelligence, data warehousing, and ad-hoc analytical workloads where raw query speed and a rich SQL feature set are paramount.

The choice between Pinot and ClickHouse is a strategic one, hinging on the specific nature of the analytical workload. Pinot is the preferred choice for applications demanding high concurrency and predictable latency in user-facing scenarios. ClickHouse is the superior option for workloads that require maximum query throughput and analytical flexibility for internal use cases, provided the organization has the operational expertise to manage its infrastructure. This report provides the detailed analysis and decision framework necessary to make an informed choice, architect a robust real-time pipeline, and implement the optimization techniques required to approach the limits of real-time analytical performance.

Part I: The Frontier of Real-Time Analytics

 

Section 1: Defining “True Real-Time” and Sub-Millisecond Latency

 

Before embarking on a technical comparison, it is imperative to establish a rigorous and unambiguous framework for the core concepts of the query. The terms “true real-time” and “sub-millisecond latency” are frequently used in marketing contexts but possess specific technical meanings and constraints that fundamentally shape architectural decisions. This section deconstructs these concepts, separating data freshness from query latency and grounding aspirational performance goals in the physical and practical realities of distributed systems.

 

1.1 Deconstructing Real-Time Analytics: Data Freshness vs. Query Latency

 

The effectiveness of a real-time analytics system is measured along two independent axes: how current the data is and how quickly it can be queried. A system that excels in one but fails in the other cannot deliver on the promise of true real-time insights.1

  • Data Freshness (Ingestion Latency): This metric represents the time elapsed from the moment an event is generated to the moment it becomes available for querying within the analytical system. It is a critical, yet often overlooked, component of “real-time.” A common misconception is that real-time analytics is solely about low-latency querying; however, a system might deliver fast queries on data that is minutes or even hours old, rendering the insights stale and non-actionable for immediate decision-making.2 This staleness arises from two primary sources: network or pipeline delay, which is the time data spends in transit (e.g., in Kafka topics or processing pipelines), and ingestion delay, which is the time the database itself takes to process, format, index, and store the data to make it queryable.2
  • Query Latency: This is the more commonly understood metric, representing the time between the submission of a query and the reception of a complete result set.1 It is the primary focus of the “sub-millisecond” requirement. Evaluating query latency requires a nuanced approach beyond simple averages. Key metrics include response time (total round-trip time), throughput (queries processed per second), and, most importantly for user-facing applications, tail latencies such as P95 or P99 latency. P99 latency, which indicates the maximum latency experienced by 99% of requests, is a critical measure of a system’s predictability and performance under load.3

 

1.2 The Spectrum of Real-Time: From Near-Real-Time to Hard Real-Time

 

The term “real-time” is not monolithic; it describes a spectrum of systems with vastly different requirements and architectural patterns.

  • On-Demand vs. Continuous Analytics: Gartner defines two primary modes of real-time analytics. On-demand analytics is a reactive model where the system provides results only when a user or application submits a query. This is the typical model for interactive dashboards and data exploration. Continuous analytics, in contrast, is a proactive model where the system continuously analyzes data streams and automatically triggers alerts or responses in other applications as events happen.4 While both models require low latency, the continuous model places a greater emphasis on uninterrupted, high-throughput stream processing.
  • Near-Real-Time: This is the domain where OLAP databases like Apache Pinot and ClickHouse operate. It involves processing and analyzing data with a slight, non-deterministic delay, typically measured in seconds or sub-seconds.2 This level of performance is more than sufficient for the vast majority of business and user-facing applications, such as real-time personalization, fraud detection, and operational monitoring, where human-perceptible immediacy is the goal.4
  • Hard Real-Time: This category belongs to specialized control systems, such as avionics, industrial robotics, or automotive safety systems.2 These systems require deterministic, guaranteed response times, often on the order of milliseconds or microseconds, where a missed deadline constitutes a system failure. The analytical capabilities of these systems are typically minimal, as their primary function is control, not complex data analysis. It is crucial to distinguish this from the near-real-time analytics provided by OLAP databases.

 

1.3 The Physics of Speed: Theoretical Limits and Practical Realities of Sub-Millisecond Response

 

An examination of the physical constraints of data transfer and the inherent overheads of software systems reveals that achieving end-to-end sub-millisecond latency for complex analytical queries is a physical and software near-impossibility. The requirement should therefore be interpreted as a directive for extreme optimization, aiming for a level of performance that is perceived as instantaneous by a human user.

  • The Speed of Light Constraint: The speed of light in a vacuum imposes a hard physical limit on data transfer. A signal takes approximately 1 millisecond to travel 300 km.7 In optical fiber, where the speed is roughly two-thirds that of a vacuum, this distance is closer to 200 km. This means a round trip for a query and its response is limited to about 100 km for a 1ms latency. This physical reality immediately dictates that any system targeting sub-millisecond latency must be geographically co-located within a single datacenter, and likely within the same server rack, to minimize network path length.7
  • Network and System Overheads: Beyond the speed of light, numerous other factors contribute to latency. Every network hop, router, and switch adds delay. At the software level, the TCP/IP stack itself introduces overhead through handshakes and buffer management.8 Within the application, further delays are incurred by memory allocation, garbage collection (in Java-based systems like Pinot), serialization and deserialization of data, and the computational cost of the query execution logic itself.8 Benchmarks on highly optimized web services show that even with careful tuning of TCP settings and memory management, achieving consistent sub-millisecond response times is a significant engineering challenge, often yielding average latencies of 1-3 ms under heavy load.8
  • Setting Realistic Expectations: The stated performance goals of the databases themselves provide a realistic baseline. Apache Pinot, for instance, targets P95 query latencies as low as 10 ms.9 ClickHouse benchmarks demonstrate that optimized queries can achieve “instant” responses under 100 ms, a significant improvement from multi-second unoptimized queries.10 While storage systems like Amazon EFS can achieve sub-millisecond read latencies (e.g., 600 microseconds), this figure represents only the I/O component and does not account for the additional overhead of aggregation, filtering, and merging results in a distributed analytical query.11 Therefore, the “sub-millisecond” goal should be viewed not as a literal SLA for an entire analytical query, but as a proxy for a user experience that feels instantaneous, which typically falls within the 10-50 ms range.10

Part II: Architectural Deep-Dive: The Contenders

 

Understanding the fundamental architectural philosophies of Apache Pinot and ClickHouse is crucial for appreciating their respective strengths, weaknesses, and optimization pathways. Pinot’s design emphasizes operational scalability and high concurrency through a decoupled, componentized model. ClickHouse, in contrast, prioritizes raw single-query processing power and hardware efficiency through a more integrated, monolithic design.

 

Section 2: Apache Pinot: Architecture for High-Concurrency, User-Facing Analytics

 

Apache Pinot was originally developed at LinkedIn to power user-facing analytical products like “Who Viewed My Profile,” a use case that demands predictable low latency at extremely high query concurrency.12 This origin story is deeply reflected in its architecture, which is deliberately designed for large-scale, multi-tenant environments where operational automation and independent resource scaling are paramount.

 

2.1 The Distributed Model: Roles of the Controller, Broker, Server, and Minion

 

Pinot’s architecture is composed of four distinct, physically separable components, managed and coordinated by Apache Helix and ZooKeeper.9 This separation allows for independent scaling of different cluster functions, a critical feature for managing diverse workloads and ensuring resource isolation in a multi-tenant setup.14

  • Controller: The “brain” of the cluster, responsible for managing cluster state, schemas, table configurations, and the lifecycle of data segments. It leverages Apache ZooKeeper as a durable state store and uses Apache Helix to orchestrate all cluster operations, such as assigning data segments to servers.9
  • Broker: The stateless query gateway that serves as the entry point for clients. When a broker receives a SQL query, it consults a routing table (a view of the cluster state maintained by Helix) to identify which servers host the relevant data segments. It then scatters query fragments to the appropriate servers and, upon receiving their responses, gathers and merges them into a final result set to return to the client.9
  • Server: The stateful workhorse of the cluster that stores data segments and executes query fragments. Servers are typically segregated by “tags” into Real-time and Offline pools. This allows for hardware specialization; for example, real-time servers can be provisioned with more CPU and memory for ingestion-heavy workloads, while offline servers can be optimized for larger storage capacity.9
  • Minion: A specialized component designed to run asynchronous background tasks, such as segment merging, data retention purges, and other computationally intensive data management operations. By offloading these tasks from the main query path, Minions help ensure that query performance remains stable and predictable.9
  • Apache Helix & ZooKeeper: These are the foundational technologies for Pinot’s cluster management. Helix is a generic cluster management framework that handles partitioning, replication, load balancing, and fault tolerance. It automates complex operational tasks like rebalancing the cluster when nodes are added or removed, contributing to Pinot’s high availability and operational ease at scale.9

 

2.2 Data Ingestion and Storage: Segments, Tiers, and Deep Store

 

Pinot’s data model is designed to provide a unified view of both real-time streaming data and historical batch data, a common requirement in modern analytics.

  • Real-time, Offline, and Hybrid Tables: Pinot can ingest data from streaming sources like Apache Kafka into Real-time tables and from batch sources like HDFS or Amazon S3 into Offline tables. A key feature is the ability to combine these into a single logical Hybrid table, allowing queries to seamlessly span both fresh and historical data.18
  • Data Ingestion Flow:
  • Real-time Ingestion: Pinot employs a Low-Level Consumer (LLC) model to pull data directly from streaming platforms like Kafka. Incoming data is first held in an in-memory “consuming” segment, making it available for querying almost immediately. Periodically, this in-memory segment is committed, becoming an immutable, indexed segment file that is persisted to local disk and backed up to a deep store. This two-phase process optimizes for extremely low data freshness latency.9
  • Offline Ingestion: For historical data, segments are typically pre-built externally using frameworks like Apache Spark. These fully indexed segment files are then uploaded to the deep store and loaded into the cluster by the offline servers.9
  • Segments: The segment is the fundamental unit of data in Pinot. It is a columnar, immutable, and heavily indexed data structure that represents a partition of a table’s data. Segments are distributed and replicated across servers for scalability and fault tolerance.15
  • Deep Store: Pinot mandates the use of a distributed file system or object store (e.g., S3, HDFS, GCS) as a deep store. All committed segments are durably stored here. This architecture provides robust disaster recovery capabilities and simplifies cluster operations like bootstrapping new nodes, which can simply download their assigned segments from the deep store.9

 

2.3 Query Execution Flow: Scatter-Gather and Query Engines

 

Pinot features two distinct query engines, reflecting its evolution from a specialized aggregation engine to a more general-purpose SQL database.

  • V1 Engine: This is the original, default, and battle-tested query engine. It is highly optimized for high-QPS, low-latency scatter-gather queries. Its primary limitation is its restricted SQL dialect, which generally supports a single SELECT block with WHERE, GROUP BY, and ORDER BY clauses, but lacks support for complex operations like distributed joins or window functions.21
  • Multistage Query Engine (V2): Introduced in later versions and made generally available with Pinot 1.0, the Multistage Engine was developed to overcome the limitations of the V1 engine. It uses Apache Calcite for SQL parsing and planning, enabling it to support complex analytical queries, including distributed joins, sub-queries, and window functions. This engine may introduce intermediate compute stages and data shuffling, trading some of the V1 engine’s raw speed and concurrency for significantly greater analytical flexibility and SQL compliance.21

 

Section 3: ClickHouse: Architecture for Raw Processing Power and Analytical Speed

 

ClickHouse was developed at Yandex for web analytics and is architected for extreme performance in OLAP workloads. Its design philosophy prioritizes maximizing hardware efficiency and raw query execution speed, often favoring a more integrated and operationally hands-on approach compared to Pinot.

 

3.1 The Three-Layer Architecture: Query Processing, Storage, and Integration

 

While not composed of physically separate services like Pinot, ClickHouse’s architecture can be conceptually understood in three layers that are tightly integrated within the ClickHouse server process.23

  • Query Processing Layer: The “brain” of the system, responsible for parsing, optimizing, and executing SQL queries with extreme efficiency.
  • Storage Layer: A highly flexible layer centered on a pluggable “Table Engine” model, which dictates how data is stored, indexed, replicated, and accessed.
  • Integration Layer: Provides extensive connectivity to a wide array of external data sources and systems.

 

3.2 The MergeTree Engine Family: The Core of ClickHouse

 

The MergeTree family of table engines is the cornerstone of ClickHouse’s performance and functionality. It is an append-optimized storage structure inspired by Log-Structured Merge-Tree (LSM-Tree) principles.23

  • Core Mechanism: Data is written to the table in immutable batches called “parts.” Each part contains data sorted by a user-defined primary key. In the background, ClickHouse continuously merges these smaller parts into larger, more optimized ones. This design makes writes extremely fast and avoids the locking overhead associated with traditional transactional databases.23
  • Sparse Primary Key Index: A key innovation of ClickHouse is its sparse primary key. Instead of indexing every row, it only stores index marks for every Nth row (where N is the index_granularity, typically 8192). This allows the primary key index to be extremely small and fit entirely in memory. When a query includes a filter on the primary key, ClickHouse uses this in-memory index to quickly identify which large blocks of data (“granules”) can be skipped, drastically reducing the amount of data that needs to be read from disk.23
  • Data Replication and Mutations: The ReplicatedMergeTree engine provides fault tolerance by replicating data across multiple nodes. It uses ClickHouse Keeper, a C++ implementation of the Raft consensus protocol (compatible with ZooKeeper), to coordinate replication actions.23 Updates and deletes are not performed in-place but are handled as asynchronous “mutations.” A mutation rewrites the affected data parts in the background, reinforcing the append-only nature of the engine and making it best suited for insert-heavy analytical workloads.23

 

3.3 Vectorized Execution and Parallel Processing: The Engine of Performance

 

ClickHouse’s legendary speed is a direct result of its focus on hardware-level efficiency in query processing.

  • Columnar Storage: Like Pinot, ClickHouse is a true columnar database. Data for each column is stored contiguously, which minimizes disk I/O for analytical queries that typically access only a subset of a table’s columns.23 This format also enables extremely high data compression ratios.24
  • Vectorized Query Execution: This is arguably the most important performance feature of ClickHouse. All data processing operations are performed not on individual values, but on arrays (“vectors” or “chunks”) of column data. This approach dramatically improves CPU cache utilization and enables the use of SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) CPU instructions, allowing a single instruction to be applied to multiple data points simultaneously. The result is a massive reduction in processing overhead compared to traditional row-by-row execution.23
  • Multi-level Parallelism: ClickHouse is designed to parallelize query execution at every possible level. For a distributed query, it parallelizes work across multiple server nodes (shards). Within a single server, it parallelizes work across all available CPU cores. And within each core, it uses SIMD for further parallelization. This ensures that a large query can utilize all available hardware resources to return a result as quickly as possible.23

 

3.4 Replication and Sharding: Achieving Scale and Fault Tolerance

 

ClickHouse provides standard mechanisms for horizontal scaling and high availability, though with significant operational caveats.

  • Sharding: Data can be horizontally partitioned across a cluster of servers (shards). The Distributed table engine acts as a virtual, stateless layer that provides a unified view of the data across all shards. When a query is made to a Distributed table, it is rewritten and sent to all underlying shards for parallel execution.26
  • Replication: Each shard can consist of one or more replicas to ensure high availability and fault tolerance. Replication is managed by the ReplicatedMergeTree engine in conjunction with ClickHouse Keeper.26
  • Operational Caveat: A critical architectural distinction is that a ClickHouse cluster is not “elastic” in the same way as a Pinot cluster. When a new shard is added, the system does not automatically rebalance existing data onto it. This re-sharding process is a complex, manual, and operationally intensive task.14 This design choice prioritizes stability and control over automated elasticity, making it more challenging to manage at very large scales without significant SRE investment.

Part III: The Path to Sub-Millisecond Performance: Optimization Strategies

 

Achieving extreme low latency in analytical databases is not an automatic outcome of their architecture but the result of deliberate and aggressive optimization. Both Apache Pinot and ClickHouse offer powerful, albeit philosophically different, toolkits for minimizing query times. Pinot’s strategy centers on a flexible, multi-modal indexing layer designed to reduce data scanning at query time. ClickHouse’s approach focuses on pre-computation at ingest time, transforming and aggregating data before it is ever queried.

 

Section 4: Optimizing Apache Pinot: The Power of Advanced Indexing

 

Pinot’s primary strategy for delivering low-latency responses is to minimize the amount of data that must be scanned from disk at query time. It accomplishes this through a rich and highly configurable set of indexes, each tailored to accelerate specific types of query patterns. This “query-time optimization” philosophy provides immense flexibility, allowing operators to adapt to new and evolving query workloads by adding appropriate indexes, often without changing the underlying data layout.31

 

4.1 A Taxonomy of Pinot Indexes

 

Pinot’s indexing capabilities go far beyond the standard forward and inverted indexes found in many databases.

  • Forward Index: This is the primary columnar data store. For each column, it maps a document ID to its value. By default, it is dictionary-encoded, where unique column values are stored in a dictionary and the forward index stores integer IDs, but it can be configured as a raw value index for high-cardinality columns.32
  • Inverted Index: A classic database index that maps each unique value in a column to the list of document IDs containing that value. It is essential for accelerating WHERE clause filters with equality predicates (e.g., WHERE country = ‘US’) on low-to-medium cardinality columns.33
  • Range Index: Specifically designed to accelerate range-based predicates (e.g., WHERE price BETWEEN 100 AND 200 or timestamp > X). It is particularly effective on high-cardinality numeric or timestamp columns where an inverted index would be inefficient.33
  • Text Index: Leverages Apache Lucene to provide powerful full-text search capabilities on string columns. This enables efficient execution of queries with CONTAINS or REGEX predicates.33
  • JSON Index: Allows for the creation of indexes on fields nested within a JSON object. This enables fast filtering on JSON attributes without the need for full deserialization and scanning of the entire JSON blob at query time.33
  • Geospatial Index: Utilizes Uber’s H3 library to index and query geospatial data, enabling efficient execution of location-based queries like finding points within a given radius or polygon.33
  • Bloom Filter: A probabilistic data structure that can quickly test whether a value is not present in a block of data. It is useful for pruning segments when filtering on high-cardinality columns with equality predicates, as it can avoid a full scan of segments that are guaranteed not to contain the queried value.34

The following table provides a practical decision-making framework for applying these indexes based on query patterns and data characteristics.

 

Index Type Description Ideal Use Case (Query Type) Cardinality Recommendation Latency Impact Example
Inverted Index Maps column values to document IDs. EQUALS, IN filters. Low to Medium. 2.3s -> 12ms 33
Sorted Index Physically sorts data by a column. EQUALS, IN, RANGE filters on the sorted column. Low to Medium. 2.3s -> 15ms 33
Range Index Indexes ranges of values within data blocks. RANGE filters (>, <, BETWEEN). High. 40s -> 2.9s 33
Text Index Lucene-based full-text search index. TEXT_MATCH, REGEX_LIKE filters. High (Text data). N/A
JSON Index Indexes fields within a JSON blob. JSON_MATCH filters on nested fields. Varies (Nested data). 17s -> 10ms 33
Bloom Filter Probabilistic check for value existence. EQUALS filters on columns not already indexed. High. N/A
Star-Tree Index Pre-aggregated multi-dimensional cube. GROUP BY aggregations on predictable dimensions. Varies (see below). Orders of magnitude 14

 

4.2 Deep Dive: The Star-Tree Index

 

The Star-Tree index is Pinot’s most unique and powerful feature for accelerating analytical queries. It is not merely an index but a complete, pre-aggregated representation of the data, embodying a trade-off of increased storage space for dramatic reductions in query latency.35

  • Concept: The Star-Tree index creates a multi-dimensional data cube from the raw data. During the ingestion process, it pre-computes aggregations (e.g., SUM, COUNT, AVG) for various combinations of specified dimensions. This pre-aggregation avoids the need to perform expensive computations over raw data at query time.32
  • How it Works: The structure is a tree. The root node represents the aggregated data for all dimensions. At each subsequent level, the data is split on a new dimension, and a special “star” node is created that represents the aggregate with that dimension removed. For example, a query grouping by country and device might find a pre-computed result. A query grouping only by country could use a star-node where the device dimension was aggregated away. This allows a single Star-Tree to serve a wide variety of queries, often by simply looking up a pre-calculated value instead of scanning any raw data.35
  • Use Case and Impact: The Star-Tree is ideal for powering interactive dashboards and user-facing analytics where the query patterns (i.e., the dimensions and metrics being queried) are largely predictable. For these workloads, it can reduce query latencies by orders of magnitude, making it the key to achieving sub-second performance on complex aggregations.14
  • Configuration: The performance of the Star-Tree is highly dependent on its configuration. The dimensionsSplitOrder parameter, which defines the order in which dimensions are used to build the tree, is critical. For optimal pruning and performance, dimensions should be ordered from highest cardinality to lowest cardinality.32

 

Section 5: Optimizing ClickHouse: Pre-computation and Data Skipping

 

ClickHouse’s optimization philosophy is fundamentally different from Pinot’s. Rather than relying on a flexible layer of query-time indexes, ClickHouse emphasizes shifting as much computational work as possible to the data ingestion phase. By pre-calculating results using Materialized Views and creating alternative data layouts with Projections, it ensures that the read path is as simple and fast as possible. This approach creates a more rigid but potentially even faster system for well-defined, stable query patterns.

 

5.1 Deep Dive: Materialized Views

 

Materialized Views are the primary tool for query acceleration in ClickHouse. They are a powerful mechanism for pre-aggregating, transforming, or filtering data as it is ingested, effectively trading increased write-path overhead and storage for extreme read-path speed.36

  • Concept: A ClickHouse materialized view is not a queryable object itself, but rather a trigger that populates a separate, regular target table. When a batch of data is inserted into a source table, the materialized view’s SELECT query is executed over that new batch, and the results are inserted into the target table.36
  • How it Works: Consider a scenario tracking real-time page views. A source table, page_views, ingests raw event data. A materialized view could be defined to GROUP BY url, toStartOfHour(timestamp) and calculate count(). These hourly aggregated counts are inserted into a target table, page_views_hourly. Subsequent dashboard queries for hourly traffic would then query the much smaller and pre-aggregated page_views_hourly table, returning results in milliseconds even if the source table contains billions of rows.36
  • Types:
  • Incremental View: This is the standard and most powerful type. It updates the target table in real-time as each new data batch is inserted into the source table. It is highly efficient as it only processes new data.38
  • Refreshable View: This type re-runs its entire query on a schedule (e.g., every hour) and overwrites the target table. It is less common but useful for caching results of expensive queries where some data staleness is acceptable, such as generating a “top 10” list.38
  • Limitations: The power of materialized views comes with notable limitations. Incremental views can only be defined over a single source table and do not support complex joins. They are only triggered by INSERT operations, meaning updates or deletes on the source data are not propagated. Furthermore, in scenarios with very high-frequency, small-batch writes, the overhead of constantly triggering view updates can degrade ingestion performance.39

 

5.2 Deep Dive: Projections

 

Projections offer a more transparent and automated way to achieve some of the benefits of materialized views, particularly for creating alternative data orderings.

  • Concept: A projection can be thought of as a hidden, automatically managed version of a table’s data. It is stored alongside the main table’s data and can be sorted by different columns (creating a new primary index) or contain pre-aggregated data.40
  • How it Differs from Materialized Views: The key difference is transparency. A user always queries the base table, and the ClickHouse optimizer will automatically decide whether to use the base table’s data or a projection’s data to satisfy the query, choosing whichever path is more efficient. This eliminates the need for users to know about and explicitly query a separate target table, as is required with materialized views. However, projections are more limited; they cannot be chained, do not support joins, and are more tightly coupled to the lifecycle of the base table.41
  • Use Case: Projections are best used when a query workload would benefit significantly from a different physical data sorting order than the one defined by the table’s primary key. For example, if a table is sorted by timestamp but frequently filtered by user_id, a projection with ORDER BY user_id can dramatically speed up those queries without the operational overhead of a full materialized view.41

 

5.3 Data Skipping Indexes

 

In addition to its primary key, ClickHouse supports secondary, lightweight data structures known as “skipping indexes.” These indexes are built over granules of data (the same 8192-row blocks used by the primary key) and allow the query engine to skip reading granules that are guaranteed not to contain relevant data.44

  • Types: Common types include minmax (stores the minimum and maximum value of a column for each granule), set (stores the unique values for low-cardinality columns), and bloom_filter (a probabilistic structure for checking value existence in high-cardinality columns).44
  • Impact: These indexes provide an additional layer of data pruning on top of the primary key, further reducing I/O for queries that filter on non-primary-key columns. Their effectiveness depends on the correlation of the indexed data with the primary key; they are most effective when values are “clumped” together within granules.44

Part IV: Implementation, Comparison, and Strategic Considerations

 

This section synthesizes the architectural and optimization analysis into a practical, comparative framework. It provides a head-to-head evaluation of Apache Pinot and ClickHouse across key dimensions, explores common implementation patterns, addresses the critical challenge of high-cardinality data, and examines the real-world costs of deployment at scale.

 

Section 6: Head-to-Head Comparison: Pinot vs. ClickHouse

 

While both systems are powerful real-time OLAP databases, their distinct architectural philosophies lead to significant differences in performance characteristics, operational models, and ideal use cases.

 

6.1 Ingestion Performance and Data Freshness

 

  • Apache Pinot: Excels in real-time streaming ingestion, particularly from Apache Kafka. Its native pull-based, low-level consumer architecture is designed for very small batch sizes, which minimizes ingestion latency and maximizes data freshness.14 The system has robust, built-in support for exactly-once semantics and the handling of out-of-order events, which are common in real-world data streams.14
  • ClickHouse: While capable of ingesting streaming data, its performance is optimized for larger batches (e.g., 1000+ rows at a time).45 This batch-oriented approach can inherently increase data freshness latency compared to Pinot’s micro-batching. The native
    KafkaEngine is simple for initial setup but has known scalability and reliability challenges in production, such as potential message duplication.14 Consequently, robust production deployments often rely on more complex, push-based architectures using tools like Kafka Connect or a dedicated stream processing layer.46

 

6.2 Query Performance and Concurrency

 

  • Apache Pinot: Architected from the ground up for extremely high query concurrency, capable of serving hundreds of thousands of queries per second (QPS).9 Its performance model is built on delivering predictable, low latency under this heavy concurrent load, making it the superior choice for user-facing applications where thousands of users are querying simultaneously.48 This performance is heavily dependent on the effective use of its rich indexing capabilities.
  • ClickHouse: Renowned for its exceptional raw processing speed and throughput on individual complex queries. However, its concurrency capabilities are generally lower than Pinot’s.30 It is better suited for workloads with fewer, heavier queries, such as internal business intelligence dashboards, ad-hoc data exploration by analysts, and analytical reporting, where query complexity is high but the number of concurrent users is in the dozens or hundreds, not thousands.49

 

6.3 Join Capabilities and SQL Compliance

 

  • Apache Pinot: Historically, join support was a significant limitation. However, with the maturation of the Multistage Query Engine (V2), Pinot now supports a wide range of distributed SQL joins.22 While this is a major step forward, the feature is newer and still evolving compared to more established join engines. The performance of complex joins is an area of active development.21
  • ClickHouse: Offers powerful and mature join support but with important architectural constraints. It excels at BROADCAST joins (where a small table is sent to all nodes) and COLOCATED joins (where data is pre-shuffled to ensure join keys reside on the same nodes). It struggles with large, on-the-fly SHUFFLE joins, which require massive data reshuffling across the network. This limitation often pushes users toward denormalizing their data at ingestion time to avoid expensive query-time joins.30

 

6.4 Operational Complexity and Scalability

 

  • Apache Pinot: The multi-component architecture (Controller, Broker, Server, Minion) results in a more complex initial setup. However, this design pays dividends at scale. The use of Apache Helix for cluster management automates complex tasks like node replacement and data rebalancing, making the cluster more elastic and reducing long-term operational overhead.9 Its first-class support for multi-tenancy allows for effective resource isolation between different teams or applications on a shared cluster.14
  • ClickHouse: Is significantly simpler to deploy on a single node or in a small cluster. This simplicity, however, gives way to significant operational complexity at scale. Scaling out a cluster by adding new shards is a manual, operationally intensive process that requires careful planning and execution. The lack of automatic data rebalancing and native multi-tenancy constructs makes it more challenging to manage in large, dynamic environments without a dedicated and highly skilled SRE team.14

 

Table: Comprehensive Feature and Architecture Comparison Matrix

 

Feature Apache Pinot ClickHouse
Core Architecture Componentized (Broker, Server, etc.), Scatter-Gather Integrated/Monolithic, MPP-like
Cluster Management Automated via Apache Helix, Elastic Manual/SRE-driven, Zookeeper/Keeper dependent, Rigid
Primary Ingestion Model Low-latency pull from Kafka (micro-batches) Batch-oriented, Push-preferred (large batches)
Primary Optimization Query-time via advanced indexing (Star-Tree, etc.) Ingest-time via pre-computation (Materialized Views)
Join Support Evolving Multi-stage engine for distributed joins Powerful but constrained (excels at Broadcast/Colocated)
Upsert/Update Model Real-time, synchronous upserts Asynchronous mutations (eventual consistency)
Scalability Model Elastic with automated data rebalancing Manual shard management, no automatic rebalancing
Ideal Concurrency Very High (10k – 100k+ QPS) High (100s – 1k+ QPS)
Primary Use Case User-Facing Real-Time Analytics Internal BI & Ad-Hoc Analysis

 

Section 7: Architecting the Real-Time Pipeline

 

The performance of a real-time analytics system depends not only on the database but on the entire data pipeline architecture. Integrating with a streaming backbone like Apache Kafka is a common pattern for both Pinot and ClickHouse, but the implementation details and best practices differ significantly.

 

7.1 Common Patterns: Integrating with Apache Kafka

 

  • Pinot + Kafka: This is a natural and highly optimized pairing. Pinot’s native low-level consumer pulls data directly from Kafka topics in a streamlined, efficient manner, designed for minimal latency.33 For maximum performance, it is a best practice to partition the data in the Kafka topic by a high-cardinality dimension that is frequently used in query filters (e.g.,
    user_id). This allows Pinot’s broker to perform segment pruning, sending a query to only the specific server(s) that hold data for that partition key, dramatically reducing query fanout and improving latency.17
  • ClickHouse + Kafka: This integration is more complex and offers several architectural choices, each with trade-offs.
  1. Native KafkaEngine: The simplest approach. The engine creates a read-only view directly on a Kafka topic. However, it does not store data persistently and has known production limitations regarding scalability, fault tolerance, and potential for data duplication. It is generally suitable only for development or non-critical use cases.46
  2. Kafka Connect: A more robust and recommended approach for production. The clickhouse-kafka-connect sink connector is a separate, scalable service that reliably pulls data from Kafka and pushes it into ClickHouse in optimized batches. This decouples ingestion from the database and provides better fault tolerance and delivery guarantees.47
  3. Intermediate Stream Processor: For complex transformations, enrichments, or joins before ingestion, a dedicated stream processing engine like Apache Flink or a lightweight transformation service can be placed between Kafka and ClickHouse. This layer processes the data and then writes the cleaned, structured results to ClickHouse.52

 

7.2 Case Study: Deconstructing Uber’s Use of Apache Pinot

 

The adoption of Apache Pinot at Uber provides a powerful real-world example of how to leverage and extend these technologies at massive scale. Uber uses Pinot to power a wide spectrum of use cases, from real-time operational dashboards with millions of writes per second to low-latency analytics on historical offline data.18

A critical lesson from Uber’s experience is the pattern of building a “scaffolding” layer to bridge the gap between an open-source technology’s core capabilities and specific product requirements. Uber needed the extreme concurrency and low latency of Pinot’s V1 engine, but their applications also required complex SQL features like window functions and sub-queries, which the V1 engine lacked.21 Instead of abandoning Pinot, they developed

Neutrino, an internal service based on a fork of Presto. Neutrino acts as an intelligent query federation layer. It receives complex SQL queries, pushes down the simple, high-performance aggregation parts of the query to Pinot’s V1 engine, and then executes the remaining complex logic (e.g., window functions) within its own engine. This hybrid approach allowed Uber to get the “best of both worlds”: the raw speed of Pinot for the heavy lifting and the SQL flexibility of Presto for the final analysis, all before Pinot’s own Multistage Engine was generally available.21 This demonstrates that the “best” database is often one with a strong enough core to justify building custom solutions around its limitations, assuming the engineering capacity exists.

 

7.3 Handling the High-Cardinality Challenge

 

High-cardinality dimensions—columns with a very large number of unique values, such as user IDs, request IDs, or timestamps—are a primary challenge for all analytical databases. They can lead to bloated indexes, high memory consumption, and slow query performance.53 Pinot and ClickHouse offer different strategies to mitigate this problem.

  • Pinot’s Approach:
  • Selective Dictionary Encoding: For extremely high-cardinality columns where a dictionary would be larger than the raw data itself (e.g., UUIDs), Pinot recommends disabling the default dictionary encoding by specifying them as noDictionaryColumns. This stores the raw values directly, avoiding the overhead of dictionary lookups.32
  • Specialized Indexes: Pinot leverages indexes that are well-suited for high-cardinality data. The Range Index is designed for high-cardinality numeric and time columns, while the Bloom Filter can efficiently prune data for equality filters on high-cardinality dimensions.32
  • Star-Tree Configuration: The performance of a Star-Tree index is sensitive to cardinality. The dimensionsSplitOrder should be configured with high-cardinality dimensions first to maximize the pruning effectiveness during tree construction.32
  • ClickHouse’s Approach:
  • LowCardinality Data Type: This is the primary and most powerful tool in ClickHouse for this problem. It is a data type wrapper (e.g., LowCardinality(String)) that creates a dictionary for a column. It is extremely effective for columns that have a large number of unique values globally but where values repeat frequently within data blocks (e.g., a city column in a global dataset). It dramatically reduces storage footprint and accelerates filtering and grouping operations.55
  • Primary Key Design: A crucial best practice is to avoid including extremely high-cardinality columns in the primary key, as this can degrade the effectiveness of the sparse index.55
  • Data Skipping Indexes: For true high-cardinality columns where LowCardinality is not effective, a bloom_filter skipping index is the recommended tool to help the query engine avoid scanning irrelevant data blocks.44

 

Section 8: Hardware, Deployment, and Cost at Scale

 

The choice of hardware and deployment model has a significant impact on both performance and the total cost of ownership (TCO).

 

8.1 Hardware Recommendations for Optimal Performance

 

  • Apache Pinot: General guidance suggests a heterogeneous cluster. Real-time servers, which handle ingestion and query fresh data, benefit from being optimized for CPU and memory. Offline servers, which store vast amounts of historical data, can be optimized for storage density.9 For I/O-intensive workloads, tuning OS-level memory mapping settings like
    madvise can improve performance.57 Pinot supports both vertical scaling (adding more CPU/memory to existing nodes) to handle temporary load spikes and horizontal scaling (adding more nodes) for long-term growth.33
  • ClickHouse: Provides more explicit hardware guidelines. For latency-sensitive applications, I/O-optimized instances with fast, directly attached NVMe or provisioned IOPS SSD storage are strongly recommended.58 ClickHouse offers specific memory-to-CPU core ratios based on workload type (e.g., 2:1 for compute-optimized, 8:1 for data warehousing) and memory-to-storage ratios based on data access frequency (e.g., 1:30 for frequently accessed data).58 At least three replicas per shard are recommended for production high availability.58

 

8.2 On-Premise vs. Managed Cloud Services

 

Both Pinot and ClickHouse are complex distributed systems that require significant operational expertise to deploy, manage, and scale in production. This has led to the rise of fully managed cloud services.

  • The Value Proposition: Managed offerings like StarTree Cloud (for Pinot) and ClickHouse Cloud abstract away the immense operational burden of cluster provisioning, configuration, scaling, backups, and monitoring.60 This is particularly valuable for ClickHouse, given its manual scaling and rebalancing processes, and for Pinot, given its multi-component setup complexity.
  • Cost Model: While the open-source software is free, the true TCO of a self-managed deployment includes hardware costs, and more significantly, the substantial and ongoing cost of specialized engineering talent required for operations.45 Managed services convert this unpredictable operational expenditure into a more predictable subscription-based cost, often with consumption-based pricing models that leverage cloud object storage (like S3) to make long-term data retention more affordable.60

 

8.3 Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Analysis

 

A qualitative TCO analysis reveals a trade-off between initial and long-term costs.

  • Pinot’s TCO: May have a higher initial setup complexity if self-managed. However, its automated cluster management and elastic scaling capabilities can lead to lower long-term operational costs, especially in large, dynamic environments. Its extensive use of indexes can lead to higher storage costs compared to ClickHouse’s superior compression.
  • ClickHouse’s TCO: Lower initial setup cost, particularly for smaller deployments. The TCO can escalate significantly at scale due to the high operational overhead of manual scaling, rebalancing, and cluster management. Its highly efficient compression and more conservative indexing can result in lower storage costs.49

Part V: Future Trajectory and Final Recommendations

 

The choice between Apache Pinot and ClickHouse should not only be based on their current capabilities but also on their future development trajectories. Both projects are highly active and are evolving rapidly to address their respective weaknesses and expand their reach, converging toward becoming more comprehensive, SQL-compliant analytical platforms.

 

Section 9: The Development Roadmap: What Lies Ahead

 

Analysis of the recent and planned developments for both projects reveals their strategic priorities.

 

9.1 Apache Pinot’s Path Forward (Post-1.0)

 

The development roadmap for Apache Pinot, particularly since its 1.0 release in 2023, shows a clear and aggressive push to mature into a full-featured analytical database, moving beyond its roots as a specialized aggregation engine.22

  • Key Themes:
  • Maturing the Multistage Query Engine: A primary focus is on enhancing the V2 engine to make it the default for all queries. This includes improving its planner and execution framework to handle complex queries more efficiently.62
  • Full SQL Compliance: There is a major effort to close the SQL feature gap. This includes robust support for all JOIN types, the introduction of window functions, and improved NULL handling to ensure compatibility with standard BI tools like Tableau.22
  • Enhanced Ingestion and Data Management: Developments include a more capable Spark 3 connector, native DELETE support for upsert tables to better handle Change Data Capture (CDC) streams from tools like Debezium, and optimizations to reduce memory usage for high-cardinality primary keys in upsert tables.22
  • Pluggability and Extensibility: The introduction of an Index Service Provider Interface (SPI) allows developers to plug in their own custom or proprietary indexing strategies without modifying the Pinot core, fostering a richer ecosystem of optimizations.22
  • Strategic Implication: Pinot is systematically addressing its historical limitations, particularly around complex SQL. The goal is to make it a more self-sufficient, all-in-one platform for real-time analytics, reducing the need for external query federation layers like Uber’s Neutrino and broadening its applicability to more ad-hoc analytical use cases.

 

9.2 ClickHouse’s Vision for 2025

 

The official 2025 roadmap for ClickHouse, detailed in its public GitHub issue, signals a major strategic expansion. ClickHouse aims to evolve from being a world-class OLAP database into a high-performance query engine for the entire modern data stack, particularly the data lake.63

  • Key Themes:
  • Deep Data Lake Integration: This is the most prominent theme, with extensive work planned to improve reading from and writing to open table formats like Apache Iceberg and Delta Lake. This includes features like partition pruning for Iceberg, time travel queries, support for delete vectors, and integration with catalogs like AWS Glue.63
  • Query Engine Enhancements: The roadmap includes significant optimizations for the query engine, such as better JOIN reordering, support for correlated subqueries, a userspace page cache, and the introduction of “lazy columns” to defer reading data until it is absolutely needed.63
  • Advanced Data Storage and Types: Work is underway to make the JSON data type production-ready, introduce a UNIQUE KEY constraint, and add native support for vector search, positioning ClickHouse for AI/ML workloads.63
  • Improved Interfaces and Operability: Plans include a CPU-based resource scheduler to improve workload management, support for the PromQL query language, and persistent databases in clickhouse-local to simplify development workflows.63
  • Strategic Implication: ClickHouse is positioning itself to be the single, unified engine for querying data regardless of where it resides—whether in its own highly optimized MergeTree tables or in open formats on cloud object storage. This strategy directly competes with query engines like Trino and Spark, aiming to provide superior performance across the entire data lakehouse ecosystem.

This convergent evolution means the choice between the two systems is becoming less about a binary “can vs. cannot” and more about their core architectural philosophies and how they achieve their goals. Pinot’s DNA is in operational automation and user-facing concurrency, while ClickHouse’s is in raw engine efficiency and analytical flexibility. These fundamental differences will likely remain the key differentiators for the foreseeable future.

 

Section 10: Conclusion and Recommendations

 

This analysis has explored the architectures, optimization techniques, and strategic directions of Apache Pinot and ClickHouse in the context of implementing true real-time analytics with sub-millisecond latency. The investigation yields a clear verdict on the feasibility of this goal and provides a robust framework for selecting the appropriate technology.

 

10.1 Revisiting Sub-Millisecond Latency: A Final Verdict

 

Achieving end-to-end, consistent sub-millisecond latency for non-trivial, distributed OLAP queries is not a realistic or achievable Service Level Agreement (SLA) for either Apache Pinot or ClickHouse. The physical constraints of network data transfer, combined with the inherent overheads of operating systems and complex software stacks, place the practical limit for such queries in the millisecond to tens-of-milliseconds range.

However, this does not diminish the value of these systems. The “sub-millisecond” requirement should be interpreted as a business driver for extreme optimization. By aggressively applying the techniques discussed in this report—such as Pinot’s Star-Tree indexes for predictable aggregations or ClickHouse’s Materialized Views for pre-computation—it is possible to achieve query latencies in the low single-digit to tens of milliseconds range for specific, well-defined query patterns. This level of performance is perceived as instantaneous by end-users and successfully meets the business objective behind the sub-millisecond aspiration.

 

10.2 Decision Framework: Choosing the Right Database

 

The choice between Apache Pinot and ClickHouse should be driven by a careful evaluation of the primary workload characteristics, concurrency requirements, and the organization’s operational capabilities.

Choose Apache Pinot when:

  • The primary use case is user-facing analytics, where applications or end-users directly query the database, requiring very high concurrency (thousands to hundreds of thousands of QPS).
  • Predictable low latency under high concurrent load is a more critical requirement than the absolute fastest performance on a single, complex query.
  • The organization operates at a scale where operational automation, elastic scalability, and multi-tenancy are paramount. Pinot’s architecture, powered by Apache Helix, is explicitly designed for these scenarios.
  • Query patterns are predominantly filtered aggregations that can be heavily optimized with Pinot’s rich set of specialized indexes, particularly the Star-Tree index.

Choose ClickHouse when:

  • The primary use case is internal Business Intelligence, operational dashboards, and ad-hoc analysis by data scientists and analysts, characterized by high data volumes and complex queries at lower concurrency.
  • Raw query throughput, a rich SQL function library, and analytical flexibility are the most important factors.
  • The workload is read-heavy with stable, well-understood query patterns that can be dramatically accelerated by pre-computing results with Materialized Views.
  • The organization possesses strong SRE/DevOps capabilities to manage the operational complexity of scaling and maintaining the cluster, or is prepared to leverage a managed cloud service to abstract this complexity away.

 

10.3 Strategic Recommendations for Implementation

 

  1. Benchmark on Your Own Data and Workload: Do not rely on generic or vendor-provided benchmarks.66 The performance of both systems is exceptionally sensitive to data schema, cardinality, and specific query patterns. A proof-of-concept using your own data is an essential step in the evaluation process.
  2. Architect for the System’s Strengths: Do not try to force a system to behave in a way that contradicts its core design. If you choose Pinot, invest the time and resources to develop a sophisticated, multi-faceted indexing strategy. If you choose ClickHouse, design your data models and ingestion pipelines around denormalization and pre-computation with Materialized Views.
  3. Strongly Consider Managed Services: For most organizations, the operational overhead of running these complex distributed systems at production scale is substantial. Managed services like StarTree Cloud (Pinot) and ClickHouse Cloud can significantly de-risk deployment, lower the total cost of ownership, and allow engineering teams to focus on application development rather than infrastructure management.60
  4. Plan for an Evolving Ecosystem: Both platforms are under active, rapid development. The decision made today should be informed by their respective roadmaps and how they align with your organization’s long-term data strategy. Consider whether your future needs are more aligned with Pinot’s focus on user-facing applications and operational ease, or ClickHouse’s ambition to become the high-performance query engine for the entire data lake.