Category Archives: Data Engineering

Why AI Projects Stall?

Leave a reply

In short answer is YES.

1. No clear business owner or decision

Many projects start with enthusiasm but fail to answer:

  • What decision or workflow is AI improving?
  • Who owns the outcome?

Without a business owner and success metric, AI remains a lab experiment.

2. Poor data readiness

AI stalls when:

  • Data is inconsistent, incomplete, or poorly governed
  • Key data is inaccessible (especially unstructured data)
  • No data ownership or quality accountability exists

AI amplifies data problems—it doesn’t overcome them.

3. Over-ambitious scope

Common failure pattern:

  • Trying to automate end-to-end processes too early
  • Expecting autonomy instead of augmentation

Large, undefined scopes increase risk and slow delivery.

4. Governance and risk concerns emerge late

Projects often pause when:

  • Security, privacy, or compliance teams engage too late
  • Model explainability or auditability becomes a concern

Late-stage risk discovery kills momentum.

5. Organizational readiness gaps

AI introduces:

  • Probabilistic outputs
  • New operating models
  • Cross-team dependencies

If teams expect deterministic behavior or lack AI literacy, adoption stalls.

6. No path to production

Many pilots fail to scale due to:

  • Lack of MLOps / model lifecycle management
  • No monitoring, retraining, or cost controls
  • Unclear handoff from pilot to production teams

Pattern I see most often

AI projects don’t fail because the models don’t work—they stall because the organization isn’t ready to operationalize them.

In one line, “AI projects usually stall due to unclear business ownership, poor data readiness, over-scoped ambitions, and governance concerns surfacing too late—turning promising pilots into permanent experiments.”

Data Engineering ETL Patterns

Leave a reply

Data Engineering ETL Patterns: A Practical Deep Dive for Modern Pipelines

In the early days of data engineering, ETL was a straightforward assembly line: extract data from a handful of transactional systems, transform it inside a monolithic compute engine, and load it into a warehouse that fed dashboards. That world doesn’t exist anymore.

Case Study: How Large-Scale ETL Looked in 2006 — Lessons from the PhoneSpots Pipeline

To understand how ETL patterns have evolved, it helps to look at real systems from the pre-cloud era. One of the most formative experiences in my early career came from managing the data ingestion and transformation pipeline at PhoneSpots back in 2006.

The architecture was surprisingly large for its time: more than 600 MySQL instances deployed across the USA and EMEA. Our job was to ingest high-volume application logs coming in from distributed servers, run batch transformations, and load the structured output into these geographically distributed databases.

There was nothing “serverless” or “auto-scaling” then. Everything hinged on custom shell scripts, cron-scheduled batch jobs, and multiple Linux servers executing transformation logic in parallel. Each stage performed cleansing, normalization, enrichment, and aggregation before pushing the data downstream.

Once the nightly ingestion cycles finished, we generated business and operational reports using BIRT (Eclipse’s Business Intelligence and Reporting Tools). Leadership teams depended heavily on these reports for operational decisions, so reliability mattered as much as correctness. That meant building our own monitoring dashboards, tracking failures across hundreds of nodes, and manually tuning jobs when a server lagged or a batch window ran long.

Working on that system taught me many of the principles that still define robust ETL today:

  • Batch patterns scale surprisingly well when designed carefully
  • Distributed ingestion requires tight orchestration and recovery logic
  • Monitoring isn’t an afterthought; it is part of the architecture
  • A pipeline is only as good as its failure-handling strategy

Even though today’s tools are vastly more advanced—cloud warehouses, streaming architectures, metadata-driven frameworks—the foundational patterns remain the same. The PhoneSpots pipeline was a reminder that ETL is ultimately about disciplined engineering, regardless of era or tooling.

Today’s data platforms deal with dozens of sources, streaming events, multi-cloud target systems, unstructured formats, and stakeholders who want insights in near real time. The fundamentals of ETL haven’t changed, but the patterns have evolved. Understanding these patterns—and when to apply them—is one of the biggest differentiators for a strong data engineer.

Below is a deep dive into the most battle-tested ETL design patterns used in modern systems. These aren’t theoretical descriptions. They come from real-world pipelines that run at scale in finance, e-commerce, logistics, healthcare, and tech companies.

1. The Batch Extraction Pattern

When to use: predictable workloads, stable source systems, large datasets
Core reasoning: reliability, cost efficiency, and operational simplicity

Batch extraction is still the backbone of many pipelines. In high-throughput environments, pulling data in scheduled intervals (hourly, daily, or even every few minutes) allows the system to optimize throughput and cost.

A typical batch extraction implementation uses one of these approaches:

  • Full Extract — pulling all data on a schedule (rare now, but still used for small datasets).
  • Incremental Extract — using timestamps, high-water marks, CDC logs, or version columns.
  • Microbatch — batching small intervals (e.g., every 5 minutes) using orchestrators like Airflow or AWS Glue Workflows.

The beauty of batch extraction is timing predictability. The downside: latency. If your business model requires user-facing freshness (e.g., fraud detection), batch extraction isn’t enough.

2. Change Data Capture (CDC) Pattern

When to use: transaction-heavy systems, low-latency requirements, minimal source-impact
Core reasoning: avoiding full refreshes, reducing load on source systems

CDC is one of the most important patterns in the modern data engineer’s toolkit. Instead of pulling everything repeatedly, CDC taps into database logs to capture inserts, updates, and deletes in real time. Technologies like Debezium, AWS DMS, Oracle GoldenGate, and SQL Server Replication are the usual suspects.

The advantages are huge: low source load, near real-time replication, and efficient transformations.

However, CDC introduces complexity: schema drift, log retention tuning, and ordering guarantees. A poorly configured CDC pipeline can silently fall behind for hours or days. When using CDC, data engineers must monitor LSN/SCN offsets, replication lags, and dead-letter queues religiously.

3. The ELT Pattern (Transform Later)

When to use: cloud warehouses, large-scale analytics, dynamic business transformations
Core reasoning: push heavy computation downstream to cheaper and scalable engines

The rise of Snowflake, BigQuery, and Redshift shifted the industry from ETL to ELT: extract, load raw data, then transform inside the warehouse.

This pattern works exceptionally well when:

  • Data volume is large and transformations are complex
  • Business logic evolves frequently
  • SQL is the primary transformation language
  • You need a single source of truth for both raw and curated layers

The ELT workflow allows the raw zone to stay untouched—helping auditability, debugging, and replayability. It also centralizes the logic in SQL pipelines (dbt being the industry’s favorite).

But ELT is not a silver bullet. Complex transformations (e.g., heavy ML feature engineering) often require distributed compute engines outside the warehouse.

4. Streaming ETL (Real-Time ETL)

When to use: low-latency analytics, event-based architectures, ML inference, monitoring
Core reasoning: business decisions that rely on second-level or millisecond-level freshness

Streaming ETL changes the game in industries like ride-sharing, payments, IoT, gaming telemetry, and logistics. Instead of waiting for batch windows, data is processed continuously.

The pattern typically uses:

  • Kafka / Kinesis — for ingestion
  • Flink / Spark Structured Streaming — for processing
  • Delta Lake / Apache Hudi / Iceberg — for incremental table updates

A streaming ETL pattern requires design decisions around:

  • Exactly-once semantics
  • State management
  • Late arrival handling (watermarks)
  • Reprocessing logic
  • Back-pressure and throughput tuning

Streaming pipelines give you near real-time insights but require deep operational maturity. Without proper monitoring, a stream can silently accumulate lag and cause cascading failures.

5. The Merge (Upsert) Pattern

When to use: CDC, slowly changing data, fact tables with late-arriving records
Core reasoning: maintaining accurate history and reconciling evolving records

Upserts are everywhere in modern ETL. A raw event arrives, an earlier event updates the same business key, or a late transaction changes the state of an order.

Technologies like MERGE INTO (Snowflake, BigQuery), Delta Lake, Iceberg, and Hudi make this easy.

The subtle challenge with merge patterns is ensuring deterministic ordering. If ingestion doesn’t respect row ordering, the warehouse might process updates in the wrong sequence, causing incorrect facts and broken KPIs.

Good pipelines maintain:

  • Surrogate keys
  • Version columns
  • Timestamp ordering
  • Idempotence

Engineers who ignore these details end up with hard-to-diagnose data anomalies.

6. The Slowly Changing Dimension (SCD) Pattern

When to use: dimensional models, tracking attribute changes over time
Core reasoning: ensuring historical accuracy for analytics

SCD is one of the oldest patterns but still essential for enterprise analytics.

Common types:

  • SCD Type 1 — Overwrite, no history
  • SCD Type 2 — Preserve history via new rows and validity windows
  • SCD Type 3 — Limited history stored in separate fields

Most production-grade systems rely on Type 2. Proper SCD requires consistent surrogate key generation, effective-dates management, and careful handling of expired records.

Typical mistakes:

  • Not closing old records properly
  • Handling out-of-order updates incorrectly
  • Forgetting surrogate keys and relying only on natural keys

SCD patterns force engineers to think carefully about how a business entity evolves.

7. The Orchestration Pattern

When to use: dependency-heavy pipelines, multi-step workflows
Core reasoning: making pipelines reliable, observable, and recoverable

Great ETL isn’t just about data movement—it is about orchestration.

Tools like Airflow, Dagster, Prefect, and AWS Glue Workflows coordinate:

  • Ingestion
  • Transformations
  • Quality checks
  • Data publishing
  • Monitoring

A good orchestration pattern defines:

  • Clear task dependencies
  • Retry logic
  • Failure notifications
  • SLAs and SLIs
  • Conditional branching (for late-arriving data or schema drift)

The difference between a junior pipeline and a senior one usually shows in orchestration quality.

8. The Data Quality Gate Pattern

When to use: high-trust domains, finance, healthcare, executive reporting
Core reasoning: preventing bad data from propagating downstream

Data quality is no longer optional. Pipelines increasingly embed:

  • Schema checks
  • Row count validations
  • Nullability checks
  • Distribution checks
  • Business-rule assertions

Tools like Great Expectations, Soda, dbt tests, or custom validation frameworks enforce contracts across the pipeline.

A quality gate ensures that if something breaks upstream, downstream consumers get notified instead of ingesting garbage.

9. The Multi-Zone Architecture Pattern

When to use: enterprise platforms, scalable ingestion layers
Core reasoning: clarity, reproducibility, lineage, governance

Most mature data lakes and warehouses follow a layered architecture:

  • Landing / Raw Zone — untouched source replication
  • Staging Zone — format normalization, light transformations
  • Curated Zone — business-ready models, fact/dim structure
  • Presentation Zone — consumption-ready data for BI/ML

This pattern enables:

  • Reprocessing without impacting source systems
  • Strong lineage
  • Auditing capability
  • Role-based access
  • Data contract boundaries

A well-designed multi-zone pattern dramatically improves platform maintainability.

10. The End-to-End Metadata-Driven ETL Pattern

When to use: large enterprises, high schema variability, multi-source environments
Core reasoning: automating transformations and reducing manual work

A metadata-driven pattern uses config files or control tables to define:

  • Source locations
  • Target mappings
  • Transform logic
  • SCD rules
  • Validation checks

Instead of hardcoding pipelines, the system reads instructions from metadata and executes dynamically. This is the architecture behind many enterprise ETL platforms like Informatica, Talend, AWS Glue Studio, and internal frameworks in large companies.

Metadata-driven ETL reduces development time, enforces consistency, and enables self-service analytics teams.

Conclusion

ETL patterns are not one-size-fits-all. The art of data engineering lies in selecting the right pattern for the right workload and combining them intelligently. A single enterprise pipeline might use CDC to extract changes, micro-batch to stage them, SCD Type 2 to maintain history, and an orchestration engine to tie everything together.

What makes an engineer “senior” is not knowing the patterns—it is knowing when to apply them, how to scale them, and how to operationalize them so the entire system is reliable.