How to Store ETL Data Efficiently in Parquet and CSV Formats

Why Storage Efficiency Matters in ETL

Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) pipelines are the backbone of modern data engineering. Whether you are building a data lake, feeding analytics dashboards, or archiving raw logs, how you store the transformed data directly impacts speed, cost, and maintainability. Storage efficiency is not just about saving disk space — it also affects query performance, network transfer times, and downstream system scalability.

Among the many storage formats, CSV and Parquet remain the most widely used. CSV is simple and universally supported, while Parquet is a columnar format designed for high efficiency. Understanding their differences and knowing how to apply them in ETL workflows is key to building scalable data solutions.

Understanding CSV

Comma-Separated Values (CSV) files are arguably the most familiar data format in the world. They are human-readable, easy to generate, and compatible with nearly every tool — from Excel to cloud services. Each row represents a record, and fields are separated by delimiters, commonly commas.

CSV's simplicity is its strength, but it comes at the cost of inefficiency when datasets grow large. Files are stored in plain text, with no compression or indexing built-in. This makes parsing large CSVs slow and storage-hungry. Moreover, CSV does not natively support data types, so everything is text until explicitly converted.

Understanding Parquet

Apache Parquet is a columnar storage format optimized for big data processing frameworks like Spark and Hive. Unlike CSV, which stores data row by row, Parquet organizes data by columns. This layout allows for efficient compression and selective reading of only the required columns.

Parquet supports rich data types, schema evolution, and advanced compression algorithms like Snappy, Gzip, and ZSTD. Because of its design, Parquet often reduces storage size by 70–90% compared to CSV, while dramatically improving query performance in analytical workloads.

CSV vs Parquet: A Practical Comparison

1. Storage Size

CSV is plain text, so file sizes grow linearly with the amount of data. Parquet, on the other hand, benefits from columnar compression and encoding techniques, reducing size significantly. For large ETL pipelines, this difference translates into lower storage costs.

2. Read and Write Performance

Reading CSV requires scanning entire files, even if you only need one or two columns. Parquet allows column pruning, fetching only the necessary attributes. Write performance is slightly slower for Parquet due to compression overhead, but the trade-off is worth it in most analytical contexts.

3. Compatibility and Usability

CSV wins in universal compatibility. Any tool that handles tabular data can read it. Parquet requires libraries and tools with Parquet support, but modern ecosystems — from Python’s Pandas to cloud warehouses like Snowflake and BigQuery — support it natively.

4. Human Readability

CSV files can be opened in any text editor and inspected. Parquet files are binary and need special tools. This makes CSV better for debugging small datasets, while Parquet is superior for production pipelines.

ETL Workflows and File Formats

When designing ETL workflows, storage format should align with workload type:

Batch analytics: Parquet is ideal due to efficient querying and compression.
Data interchange: CSV is useful for sharing datasets across systems with minimal setup.
Data archiving: Parquet saves cost while preserving structure.
Quick debugging: CSV provides simplicity when investigating issues.

Python Examples

Let’s walk through some Python code for writing and reading both formats.

Writing and Reading CSV


import pandas as pd

# Sample DataFrame
data = {
    "id": [1, 2, 3],
    "name": ["Alice", "Bob", "Charlie"],
    "score": [85.5, 92.3, 78.9]
}
df = pd.DataFrame(data)

# Write to CSV
df.to_csv("data.csv", index=False)

# Read CSV
df_csv = pd.read_csv("data.csv")
print(df_csv.head())

Writing and Reading Parquet


import pandas as pd

# Same DataFrame
data = {
    "id": [1, 2, 3],
    "name": ["Alice", "Bob", "Charlie"],
    "score": [85.5, 92.3, 78.9]
}
df = pd.DataFrame(data)

# Write to Parquet
df.to_parquet("data.parquet", engine="pyarrow", index=False, compression="snappy")

# Read Parquet
df_parquet = pd.read_parquet("data.parquet")
print(df_parquet.head())

Optimization Tips

When working with Parquet in ETL, there are several best practices to keep in mind:

Partitioning: Organize files by partition keys (e.g., year, month) to reduce query scans.
Row group size: Adjust row group size to balance I/O and memory usage.
Compression: Use Snappy for balance between speed and size, or ZSTD for maximum compression.
Avoid small files: Consolidate output to reduce metadata overhead in distributed systems.

When to Use CSV or Parquet

The choice often comes down to context:

Use CSV when sharing small datasets, debugging ETL jobs, or ensuring compatibility with legacy tools.
Use Parquet for large-scale analytics, long-term storage, or when working with distributed systems like Spark.

Final Thoughts

Efficient data storage is a cornerstone of reliable ETL pipelines. CSV and Parquet are not competitors but complementary tools, each with strengths in different contexts. By understanding their trade-offs and applying best practices, you can design data pipelines that are not only functional but also cost-effective and future-proof.

As data volumes continue to grow, learning to leverage formats like Parquet effectively will pay dividends, helping teams minimize infrastructure costs while maximizing analytical performance.

ETL with Python

Search This Blog