So my definition of big data was data so big it cannot be processed on a single machine in a reasonable amount of time.
I guess they’re using a different definition?
I think it's partly tongue in cheek, because when "big data" was over hyped, everyone claimed they were working with big data, or tried to sell expensive solutions for working with big data, and some reasonable minds spoke up and pointed out that a standard laptop could process more "big data" than people thought.
loading story #47349665
> For our first experiment, we used ClickBench, an analytical database benchmark. ClickBench has 43 queries that focus on aggregation and filtering operations. The operations run on a single wide table with 100M rows, which uses about 14 GB when serialized to Parquet and 75 GB when stored in CSV format.
very much so…
In my former life as a soulless consultant mid-level IT managers really liked to hear the 3 "V"s mentioned: Velocity, Volume, Variety
loading story #47349751
Computers got bigger and software got smarter.
You have phones that are faster than cloud VMs of the past. You can use bare metal servers with up to 344 cores and 16TB of ram.
I used to share your definition too, but I now say that if it doesn’t open in Microsoft Excel, it’s big data.
loading story #47349799
I think they are simply referring to analytical workloads.
“Your data isn’t big” is a good working definition of big data.
Google has big data. You are not google.
loading story #47351409
{"deleted":true,"id":47349562,"parent":47349547,"time":1773317999,"type":"comment"}