Modern data architectures rarely succeed by choosing one system over another. Data lakes provide scale, flexibility, and a place to retain raw, evolving data. Lakehouses build on that foundation to deliver performance, governance, and analytics-ready access. When these layers work together, teams avoid duplication, control costs, and support BI, machine learning, and self-service analytics from a shared source of truth. This blog explores how data lakes and data lakehouses complement each other, where each fits in the data lifecycle, and how to design an integrated architecture that stays flexible as data needs grow.
The analytics team models customer behavior to guide strategy. Finance tracks cash flow, forecasts revenue, and ensures compliance. Product teams analyze user signals to prioritize features.
They all rely on data. Often, the same data, just in different forms, structures, and levels of readiness.
One team might need raw event logs. Another needs structured tables with joined dimensions. Someone else needs curated summaries for dashboards.
The challenge is delivering the right data, in the right format, to the right people, without duplicating or fragmenting it.
Data flows in from CRMs, applications, APIs, and sensors. Organizations use various platforms to ingest, store, query, and govern this data. Among these, data lakes and data lakehouses are widely adopted.
But the question keeps surfacing:
Should you build a data lake or a lakehouse?
Do you need both?
How do they differ, and how do they work together?
This blog breaks down the answers, cuts through the confusion, and explains how a combined approach unlocks flexibility, governance, and performance without compromise.
A data lake is a centralized storage system that ingests and stores raw, unstructured, and structured data at scale. It supports diverse formats, including logs, videos, documents, and tables.
Data lakes enable flexible, cost-efficient data ingestion and long-term retention. They use schema-on-read to delay structuring until analysis. Data lakes power machine learning, real-time analytics, and reporting workflows.
Cloud-native architecture ensures scalability and integration with open-source tools. Metadata management and governance frameworks enhance data discovery and security across layers.
A data lake works only when its core components are designed to support scale, flexibility, and downstream analytics. These components are not isolated technical layers.
They directly determine how effectively a data lake can support a data lakehouse for governed analytics and business use cases.
The ingestion layer is where most data lake challenges begin. Modern enterprises ingest data from SaaS applications, transactional databases, internal services, logs, and event streams.
These sources operate at different speeds and structures, which makes ingestion consistency a real problem.
A well-designed ingestion layer supports both batch and real-time pipelines without forcing teams into a single ingestion pattern. Operational systems often produce incremental changes, while application logs and events arrive continuously.
If ingestion is optimized only for batch, analytics lag behind the business. If it is optimized only for streaming, historical reconciliation becomes difficult.
Ingestion flexibility is critical because schema enforcement is intentionally delayed. Data arrives in its native structure and format, allowing the lake to absorb change without breaking pipelines.
The lakehouse later applies structure and optimization when the data is ready for analytics. This separation reduces friction when new data sources are introduced or when upstream systems evolve.
Object storage is the foundation that makes data lakes viable at scale. Cloud-native storage systems are designed to handle massive volumes of data with high durability and low cost. This is why data lakes rely on object storage rather than traditional database storage layers.
What distinguishes a data lake from other storage systems is its reliance on open file formats such as Parquet, ORC, or JSON.
These formats allow multiple processing engines to read the same data without transformation. Spark jobs, SQL engines, and lakehouse query layers can all access the same files directly.
This design choice is central to modern data lake vs lakehouse architectures. The lake handles long-term storage and raw data retention, while the lakehouse builds structured tables on top of that same storage.
Data does not need to be copied into a separate system to become analytics-ready. This reduces cost, avoids duplication, and keeps storage architecture simple.
As data volumes grow, a flat storage model becomes unmanageable. That is why mature data lakes adopt a zoned approach that reflects the data lifecycle rather than the tools used to process it.
The raw zone preserves data exactly as it was ingested. This is essential for auditability, reprocessing, and regulatory requirements. When upstream systems change, the raw data remains intact.
The processed zone introduces structure. Data is cleaned, standardized, and enriched, but still remains flexible. This is where business logic starts to take shape without being locked into analytics-specific models.
The curated zone contains data that is ready for consumption. These datasets align with business definitions and are often exposed through the lakehouse layer for analytics, reporting, and machine learning.
This zoning model is one of the clearest examples of how data lakes and lakehouses work together. The lake manages progression and lineage. The lakehouse focuses on performance and governance on top of curated data.
Without clear zones, lakehouse layers inherit inconsistent data, which undermines trust and adoption.
Metadata is the connective tissue of a usable data lake. Without it, even well‑ingested and properly stored data becomes untrustworthy or invisible to users.
As the number of datasets grows, so does the risk of duplication, misinterpretation, and misuse, especially when a lakehouse layer depends on accurate lineage and governance to serve analytics at scale.
Modern data lakes rely on metadata catalogs to register and describe datasets. This includes schema definitions, freshness, ownership, access policies, and usage context.
This is where platforms like OvalEdge add value. OvalEdge unifies metadata from across data lakes, lakehouses, and downstream analytics systems, then enriches it with lineage, sensitivity tags, and business context.
Instead of treating metadata as a static index, it helps teams understand how data flows, where sensitive information exists, and how assets are actually used.
That shared context becomes critical when the same physical data in the lake is surfaced as governed tables in the lakehouse.
OvalEdge ensures both layers reference the same assets, apply consistent policies, and remain understandable to engineers, analysts, and business users alike without forcing teams to duplicate data or documentation.
Raw data is messy. It contains duplicates, missing values, inconsistent formats, and unexpected edge cases. If these issues aren’t addressed early, they propagate downstream, undermining everything from BI dashboards to ML model performance.
The business impact is noticeably significant.
According to a 2023 Forrester Study on Data Quality, more than 25% of global analytics and data professionals say poor data quality costs their organization over $5 million annually, with 7% reporting losses of $25 million or more.
That’s why modern data lakes increasingly embed quality checks and enrichment processes directly within the pipeline.
This includes schema validation, type inference, statistical profiling, anomaly detection, and deduplication logic.
Enrichment workflows also add business value by joining disparate sources, resolving entity identities, or tagging records with semantic labels.
This step prepares data for the lakehouse layer, where refined, high-trust datasets must be served to users with minimal manual rework.
As data lakes expand, so does the attack surface. Without strong security and governance controls, organizations face risks ranging from data leaks to regulatory violations.
This is especially concerning when the same data feeds both operational and analytical workflows through the lakehouse.
Security in a data lake is not just about encrypting files. It involves multi-layered controls, including:
Role-based and attribute-based access policies
Row- and column-level filtering based on user context
Integration with identity providers (e.g., AWS IAM, Azure AD)
Tag-based classification of sensitive fields
Audit logging for data access and modification
These controls must be enforced at the lake level because by the time data reaches the lakehouse, it's often joined, aggregated, or exposed to broader user groups.
Without upstream enforcement, the lakehouse risks violating data privacy rules or exposing PII inadvertently.
Organizations adopting data lake frameworks need to unify policy management across both. That means using catalogs to define and propagate access rules, lineage tools to track policy violations, and monitoring systems to detect abnormal access patterns.
A data lakehouse is a modern data architecture that combines the scalable storage of a data lake with the performance and governance of a data warehouse. A lakehouse stores data in open formats on cloud object storage.
A lakehouse adds schema enforcement, transactions, and optimized query execution. It supports structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data in one system.
It also enables analytics, business intelligence, and machine learning on the same data foundation and reduces data duplication, simplifies governance, and improves performance without abandoning data lake flexibility.
A lakehouse architecture exists to solve the structural limitations of traditional data lakes while preserving their flexibility and cost advantages. Each feature addresses a specific pain point that teams encounter when trying to run reliable analytics directly on lake storage.
One of the biggest limitations of early data lakes was the lack of transactional guarantees. Multiple teams writing to the same dataset could easily overwrite files, introduce partial updates, or produce inconsistent query results.
This made data lakes unreliable for reporting, especially for incremental pipelines and concurrent workloads.
Lakehouse architectures address this by introducing ACID transactions at the table level. Transactions ensure that reads and writes are isolated, consistent, and recoverable.
When a job updates a dataset, either the entire change is committed or none of it is. Readers never see partially written data.
This capability is essential for modern analytics use cases. Incremental updates, late‑arriving data, and concurrent batch and streaming workloads all depend on transactional consistency.
Without ACID guarantees, teams resort to fragile workarounds like full reloads or complex file locking strategies, which slow down pipelines and increase operational risk.
Structured data lived in warehouses. Semi‑structured data stayed in lakes. Unstructured data required separate processing pipelines. This fragmentation increased cost and made end‑to‑end analytics harder to manage.
A lakehouse unifies access to all data types on top of a single storage layer. Structured tables coexist with JSON files, logs, and other semi‑structured data. Compute engines can query across these formats without copying data into separate systems.
This unification simplifies analytics workflows. Analysts can join structured business tables with semi‑structured event data in a single query. Data scientists can train models using both curated features and raw signals from the lake. Engineering teams maintain fewer pipelines and fewer storage systems.
From a strategy standpoint, this is why many organizations adopt lakehouses as an evolution of their data lake architecture, not a replacement.
The lake remains the storage foundation, while the lakehouse provides a unified compute layer optimized for analytics and machine learning.
Open table formats are the technical backbone of most lakehouse architectures. They sit between raw files in the data lake and the query engines that read them. Their role is to bring structure, reliability, and evolution to otherwise immutable storage.
Formats like Delta Lake, Apache Iceberg, and Apache Hudi introduce features such as versioned tables, schema evolution, time travel, and consistent metadata management.
These features allow teams to track changes over time, roll back errors, and evolve schemas without breaking downstream consumers.
This matters because data changes constantly. Columns get added. Data types evolve. Business definitions shift. Without open table formats, these changes require complex migrations or complete dataset rewrites.
Top lakehouse platforms emphasize open formats because they preserve interoperability. Multiple engines can read the same tables. Storage remains decoupled from compute. Organizations avoid being locked into a single vendor or execution engine.
As data volume increases and pipelines grow more complex, knowing what data exists, where it came from, and who can access it becomes critical. This is where metadata and lineage play a foundational role in lakehouse architecture.
A data lake may store petabytes of raw files, but without visibility into schema, update frequency, ownership, or business definitions, that data is unusable for most teams.
Lakehouses solve this by tightly integrating metadata and governance controls into the table layer. These controls make data not just discoverable, but also understandable and auditable across the stack.
Unlike traditional catalogs that sit adjacent to storage, lakehouse-native catalogs like Databricks Unity Catalog or Apache Iceberg's built-in metadata layers store schema, statistics, and lineage information directly with the table. This allows users to query metadata as easily as querying the data itself.
Lineage tracking adds another layer of confidence. When users know which pipelines produced a dataset, what transformations were applied, and who last modified it, they’re more likely to trust and reuse that asset.
This is particularly important in regulated environments, where audit trails are a compliance requirement.
In architectures where raw data lives in a lake and analytics tables are surfaced through a lakehouse, lineage cannot stop at table boundaries.
OvalEdge automatically captures end‑to‑end lineage from source systems through ETL jobs, SQL transformations, streaming pipelines, and BI layers, down to the column level.
Instead of relying on fragmented metadata from individual engines, OvalEdge builds lineage directly from source code and query logic, giving teams a reliable view of how lake data becomes lakehouse tables and reports.
This makes impact analysis practical, not theoretical. Engineers can assess downstream effects before making changes, business users can trace numbers back to their origin, and compliance teams can validate audit trails without manual effort.
By unifying lineage across data lakes, lakehouses, and consumption tools, OvalEdge helps organizations avoid the trust gaps and duplicated governance work that often appear when lineage is handled piecemeal across systems.
One of the most visible advantages of lakehouse architecture is its ability to support fast, interactive analytics on top of cloud object storage.
Traditionally, querying data directly in a data lake results in slow performance due to the lack of indexing, schema enforcement, or query optimization.
Lakehouses address this with query engines purpose-built for analytics, often including native support for column pruning, predicate pushdown, data skipping, and caching.
These features reduce the amount of data scanned and improve response times for complex queries.
Caching plays a particularly important role for dashboards and repeated reporting workloads. By storing recently accessed query results or table segments in memory or local disk, lakehouse engines like Photon (used in Databricks) or Starburst’s Trino-based engines avoid recomputing results for every user interaction.
This level of performance is what makes the lakehouse suitable for business intelligence use cases, an area where data lakes historically struggled.
Analysts using tools like Power BI or Tableau can connect directly to curated lakehouse tables without waiting minutes for queries to run or pre-loading the data into a separate warehouse.
|
Want to go deeper into Lakehouse capabilities, layers, and real-world benefits? Explore our guide on Data Lake House Architecture Benefits and Use Cases to see how modern platforms deliver unified analytics, governance, and scale. |
Lakehouses are not independent architectures. They are built on the foundation laid by the data lake.
Without the scalable, schema-flexible, and ingestion-agnostic base of a data lake, a lakehouse cannot reliably handle the variety of workloads modern enterprises require.
The data lake serves as the authoritative repository for all raw and historical data. Whether it’s application logs, transactional snapshots, IoT feeds, or external partner data, it lands in the lake first.
This raw zone is vital for traceability, reproducibility, and compliance. It preserves the original state of incoming data, which is critical when reprocessing is needed due to pipeline logic changes or evolving business rules.
Lakehouse tables, in contrast, typically reference processed or curated versions of this data. They are optimized for performance and consumption but not for exhaustive retention.
If the lake does not maintain the original source data, reprocessing or fine-tuning analytics becomes difficult or impossible. This is why leading architectures treat the lake as the immutable foundation and the lakehouse as the dynamic access layer.
One of the biggest drivers of data lake adoption is cost. Cloud object storage services like Amazon S3, Azure Data Lake Storage, and Google Cloud Storage offer scalable, pay-as-you-go models that make it feasible to store terabytes or even petabytes of data without overcommitting infrastructure spend.
This becomes even more valuable when building a lakehouse because lakehouse compute engines query data stored in the lake; there is no need to duplicate data into a separate data warehouse.
The lake retains the data in open file formats like Parquet or ORC, and the lakehouse adds table semantics and query acceleration without changing the underlying storage.
This decoupling of storage and compute allows enterprises to scale analytics workloads on demand without increasing storage costs. It also avoids the rigidity of pre-provisioned warehouse solutions that charge based on data volume rather than usage.
By separating cold, infrequently accessed data from active, performance-optimized datasets, organizations can optimize cost-to-performance ratios while retaining full data fidelity.
In traditional data warehouse pipelines, ingestion often requires data to conform to a predefined schema. This slows down onboarding and increases the engineering effort required to adapt to new data sources or changes in upstream systems.
Data lakes support schema-on-read ingestion, which means data can be stored in its original format without needing immediate transformation.
This allows organizations to capture fast-changing or unpredictable data, such as clickstreams or partner feeds, without blocking on design decisions.
Once data is ingested into the lake, it can be validated, profiled, and refined through scheduled or event-driven processing. Only after this enrichment and structuring does it get surfaced in the lakehouse layer for analytics use.
This separation of concerns enables more agile data engineering. Ingestion pipelines focus on availability and durability. Downstream processes focus on data quality and alignment with business models.
Not all data workloads are geared toward business dashboards or operational reports. Data scientists, ML engineers, and experimentation teams often require access to raw, unaggregated data that hasn’t been shaped by rigid business logic.
The data lake serves this purpose by preserving the full fidelity of incoming data, including edge cases, outliers, and anomalies that might be filtered out in the lakehouse layer.
This access supports feature engineering, model training, and behavioral experimentation that require more than just cleaned summary tables.
In many cases, teams need to replay historical data to validate algorithm performance or retrain models as conditions change. The data lake enables this by maintaining time-partitioned, append-only datasets that can be sliced and reprocessed as needed.
Lakehouses, on the other hand, provide a reliable interface for publishing production-ready features and monitoring model outputs. Together, this architecture balances flexibility for R&D with governance for operational use.
A modern data architecture is most effective when the data lake and lakehouse are designed as interoperable layers rather than isolated platforms.
The value doesn't lie in choosing one over the other, but in orchestrating them to serve the full data lifecycle, from raw ingestion to governed analytics.
In a well-architected stack, data flows from raw collection to business consumption through a logical, traceable pipeline. That pipeline starts with ingestion into the data lake via batch or streaming processes, typically landing in open formats like Parquet or Avro.
This step matters more than it often gets credit for. According to a Gartner guide on Data & Analytics, data ingestion is identified as a core component of modern data and analytics strategies, placing it alongside integration and optimization as a foundational capability rather than a backend concern.
These raw zones allow teams to retain full‑fidelity data without imposing schema decisions too early.
From there, processing frameworks such as Spark, dbt, or Airflow move data through bronze, silver, and gold zones, following the medallion architecture. Transformation, quality checks, enrichment, and schema alignment happen at this stage.
Once data reaches a refined state, it becomes queryable through the lakehouse layer. BI tools, notebooks, and downstream applications then consume it via SQL, APIs, or dashboards.
Without this layered integration, teams often duplicate data across lakes and warehouses, creating stale copies, governance gaps, and unnecessary cost.
One of the key architectural advantages of combining a data lake with a lakehouse is the clean separation of concerns across three critical layers:
Storage: All raw and processed data resides in the data lake, typically using object storage (S3, ADLS, GCS). This makes storage scalable and cost-efficient, with support for tiered retention strategies.
Compute: The lakehouse introduces an optimized query engine (such as Apache Spark, Photon, or Trino) that performs fast reads, transformations, and aggregations directly on data in the lake. This compute layer can scale independently based on usage, allowing analytics workloads to spike without inflating storage costs.
Consumption: Data consumers, including analysts, data scientists, and apps, interact with the lakehouse through familiar interfaces. The lakehouse exposes unified tables, supports ACID transactions, and integrates with governance frameworks. This allows consumption without needing to understand or manage the complexity of the raw lake layer.
This modularity improves agility, simplifies cost control, and aligns with the best practices of cloud-native data infrastructure. It also enables organizations to avoid vendor lock-in by using open formats (e.g., Delta Lake, Apache Iceberg, Hudi) across these layers.
A critical benefit of integrating a data lake and a data lakehouse is the ability to enforce governance, access control, and data definitions consistently across both layers.
This consistency is made possible through a unified metadata catalog that spans raw data stored in the lake and refined, queryable tables exposed by the lakehouse.
In practice, this means that when a data steward defines a customer entity, that definition propagates across ingestion zones, transformation workflows, and consumption layers. The same applies to ownership tags, quality rules, sensitivity classifications, and access policies.
By centralizing metadata and lineage:
Data quality and trust improve because teams know which dataset is the source of truth, where it came from, and how it has been transformed.
Compliance is easier to enforce with audit trails, data retention rules, and policy-based access applied uniformly, whether data is raw or curated.
Collaboration becomes scalable as platform teams don’t need to create separate governance layers for each stage of the pipeline.
Many modern stacks, including those using tools like Unity Catalog (Databricks), AWS Glue, or OpenMetadata, are architected to provide this unified governance across layers.
These systems track schema changes, column-level lineage, and policy enforcement in real-time, reducing operational risks.
In fragmented architectures, governance often breaks down at the boundaries when raw data gets transformed, or when analysts pull data into shadow systems. A shared metadata layer ensures control persists across the entire lifecycle.
A common pitfall in legacy data architectures is data fragmentation, where engineers, analysts, and data scientists each maintain their own copies or pipelines for similar data, often leading to stale insights, inconsistent logic, and spiraling infrastructure costs.
A layered data lake and lakehouse architecture addresses this directly by giving each persona access to the same governed foundation, tailored to their workload needs:
Data engineers ingest and manage data pipelines using the lake as a low-cost, schema-flexible landing zone.
Analysts access curated tables in the lakehouse via SQL or BI tools, using governed metrics and pre-validated data.
Data scientists query raw or semi-processed data in the lake for feature engineering, model experimentation, and training, without requesting parallel exports.
This structure removes the need for redundant transformations or isolated silos like personal sandboxes and shadow databases. All users interact with a single source of truth, but at the level of granularity and readiness that fits their use case.
Without a shared layer, each team builds its own logic, definitions, and even infrastructure. This leads to duplication, slow onboarding, and conflicting KPIs. The lake + lakehouse model solves this by enabling workload-specific access on top of common data.
Building a modern analytics architecture that combines the strengths of both data lakes and data lakehouses requires deliberate planning, not just technical tooling. The goal is to create a layered but unified system that balances flexibility, performance, governance, and cost-efficiency.
The foundation of any integrated design lies in clearly separating the responsibilities of each layer. A data lake should function as the system of record for raw, semi-structured, and unstructured data. It is ideal for:
High-throughput ingestion from varied sources (e.g., logs, IoT, batch ETL)
Storing data in its original form for long-term retention
Supporting early-stage exploration, ML experimentation, and backtesting
The data lakehouse builds on top of this layer, enabling analytics-ready access by adding schema enforcement, indexing, caching, and query optimization. This makes it ideal for:
BI dashboards, self-service analytics, and reporting
Defining reusable tables and governed data products
Enabling SQL queries on top of curated, structured datasets
Keeping these layers distinct reduces architectural confusion and avoids redundant transformations or data copies. It also improves clarity for platform teams, who can optimize ingestion and exploration pipelines separately from analytics and consumption workflows.
Lakehouse compatibility hinges on using open table formats that support both high-performance analytics and future-proof interoperability.
Formats like Apache Iceberg, Delta Lake, and Apache Hudi bring essential features to data lake storage, including:
ACID transactions and schema evolution
Time travel and version control
Partitioning, compaction, and clustering for performance
These formats allow enterprises to treat object storage like a data warehouse without locking into a proprietary stack.
|
For example, choosing Apache Iceberg ensures compatibility with multiple engines such as Trino, Apache Spark, and Snowflake, enabling hybrid analytics use cases. |
However, format choice alone isn’t enough. As lakehouse deployments mature, operational complexity becomes a real concern.
According to a 2025 Forrester Total Economic Impact Study commissioned by Google on Data Lakehouses, 73% of respondents said they prefer fully or partially managed services for open table formats.
That preference reflects a growing need to balance openness with simpler operations, consistent governance, scalable performance, and built‑in metadata management.
From a strategic standpoint, adopting open formats reduces risk when switching cloud providers, adding query engines, or scaling analytics across teams.
Governance must be built into the architecture from day one. Without unified metadata and policy enforcement, the benefits of a lakehouse collapse under data chaos, inconsistency, and non-compliance.
A well-governed lake-lakehouse system requires:
Centralized metadata catalogs that register both raw objects and curated tables, with tags for sensitivity, domains, owners, and business context
Lineage tracking to understand how data flows from ingestion to reporting, supporting audits, debugging, and data trust
Role-based access controls that apply uniformly, ensuring users only see data they're authorized to view, regardless of whether it’s in raw or transformed form
Frameworks like Unity Catalog (Databricks), AWS Lake Formation, and open-source solutions like OpenMetadata or Amundsen help enforce governance across the full lifecycle.
They integrate with policy engines, support data discovery, and align with compliance mandates like GDPR, HIPAA, and SOC 2.
In disconnected architectures, governance is fragmented. Teams apply rules inconsistently, leading to security gaps and compliance risks. A unified framework ensures governance is built into every layer, improving auditability, reducing duplication, and increasing stakeholder trust.
A modern data architecture must serve a wide range of users from business analysts and data scientists to operations teams and product managers. Each persona interacts with data differently, but the underlying architecture should avoid fragmentation or duplication.
Business intelligence (BI) workloads typically demand fast, consistent access to structured data for reporting and dashboards.
Machine learning (ML) workflows, in contrast, require access to both raw and feature-engineered data, often involving large volumes and experimentation.
Meanwhile, self-service analytics enables non-technical users to explore data with minimal IT intervention, requiring governed datasets that are easy to discover and understand.
To support these use cases within a unified data lake and lakehouse framework:
The data lake can store all ingested data in open, low-cost formats. It supports experimentation, historical reprocessing, and model training.
The lakehouse provides curated, schema-enforced views of that data optimized for query performance and business consumption.
The key is maintaining a consistent data foundation through shared catalogs, version-controlled tables, and lineage tracking, so that each user group can operate within their preferred tools without creating redundant pipelines or datasets.
In siloed architectures, teams often create their own extracts or pipelines, leading to inconsistencies in business logic, versioning issues, and increased storage costs.
A unified foundation reduces these inefficiencies and improves cross-team collaboration.
As data volumes grow and teams expand, poorly designed architectures tend to sprawl.
Different departments spin up their own pipelines, cloud environments, and governance rules, leading to operational overhead and compliance risk. Scaling effectively means growing without sacrificing consistency or performance.
A modular, layered approach helps organizations scale while maintaining control:
Shared metadata layers ensure that datasets, schemas, and policies are centrally defined and reused across tools.
Clear data ownership models assign responsibility for different domains, reducing ambiguity and duplication.
Service separation allows ingestion, processing, and analytics workloads to scale independently, each optimized for its purpose without affecting the others.
Without modularity, organizations face bloated ETL pipelines, inconsistent access control, and platform lock-in. Fragmented data access also increases security risk and audit failures. A layered approach ensures that each component can scale horizontally, without central coordination becoming a bottleneck.
If you're rethinking your data architecture, ask yourself three things:
Are we storing data once and reusing it across use cases?
Are governance and performance improving together, not working against each other?
Can our system evolve without the need for re-platforming every time business needs change?
These questions point to a bigger reality that data lakes and lakehouses aren’t competing solutions. They are interdependent.
The data lake provides scalable, cost-efficient storage for raw, unstructured, and semi-structured data. It’s where data lands first, stays flexible, and fuels experimentation.
The lakehouse, on the other hand, brings order, adding schema, performance optimization, and governance to that raw layer so it can serve real-time analytics, BI, and AI workloads.
Problems emerge when teams treat these layers as separate silos or prioritize one at the expense of the other. Duplicated data, broken lineage, and inconsistent access patterns are symptoms of fragmented thinking.
Instead, design your platform to let them work together. Use open table formats like Delta Lake, Iceberg, or Hudi to unify storage and querying. Apply governance, access control, and quality monitoring consistently across both layers.
Let the lake do what it does best, store, and the lakehouse do what it does best, serve.
The goal isn’t to choose between the two. It’s to architect for coexistence. That’s where modern, cloud-native data strategies win.
As your data lake and lakehouse grow, governance cannot stay fragmented.
OvalEdge provides a single, modular foundation for metadata, lineage, quality, and access.
Book a demo to see it in action.
A data warehouse stores structured data optimized for business intelligence and reporting. A data lakehouse combines this with the flexibility of a data lake, allowing it to handle both structured and unstructured data while supporting transactions, governance, and advanced analytics in a unified platform.
A data lake serves as the staging area for raw, unstructured, or semi-structured data before it's transformed and moved into a warehouse or lakehouse. It enables cost-effective storage, supports data ingestion at scale, and feeds downstream analytics or machine learning workflows.
Yes. Modern data lakehouses integrate governance features such as access controls, audit logs, data lineage, and schema enforcement. This allows organizations to maintain compliance, ensure data quality, and enable secure, consistent analytics across users and tools.
Yes. Data lakehouses are designed to support machine learning workloads by allowing data scientists to access raw and curated datasets in one place. With unified storage and transactional support, models can be trained on fresh, accurate, and consistent data.
Yes. Migration typically involves adding a metadata layer, enforcing schemas, and adopting open table formats like Delta Lake or Apache Iceberg. This enables existing lake storage to gain transactional capabilities and become queryable like a data warehouse.
Lakehouses handle all types: structured data like tables, semi-structured formats like JSON or Avro, and unstructured sources such as logs, videos, and documents. This flexibility supports a wide range of analytics, from BI dashboards to large-scale machine learning.