I agree. My personal experience with Spark core is that it performs really well once you tune it properly. 

As far I understand SparkSQL under the hood performs many of these optimizations (order of Spark operations) and uses a more efficient storage format. Is this assumption correct? 

Has anyone done any comparison of SparkSQL with Impala ? The fact that many of the queries don't even finish in the benchmark is quite surprising and hard to believe. 

A few months ago there were a few emails about Spark not being able to handle large volumes (TBs) of data. That myth was busted recently when the folks at Databricks published their sorting record results. 



On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Du Li <lidu@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
We have seen all kinds of results published that often contradict each other. My take is that the authors often know more tricks about how to tune their own/familiar products than the others. So the product on focus is tuned for ideal performance while the competitors are not. The authors are not necessarily biased but as a consequence the results are.

Ideally it’s critical for the user community to be informed of all the in-depth tuning tricks of all products. However, realistically, there is a big gap in terms of documentation. Hope the Spark folks will make a difference. :-)


From: Soumya Simanta <soumya.simanta@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 31, 2014 at 4:04 PM
To: "user@spark.apache.org" <user@spark.apache.org>
Subject: SparkSQL performance

I was really surprised to see the results here, esp. SparkSQL "not completing"

I was under the impression that SparkSQL performs really well because it can optimize the RDD operations and load only the columns that are required. This essentially means in most cases SparkSQL should be as fast as Spark is. 

I would be very interested to hear what others in the group have to say about this.