Open-table-formats and lakehouses are being pitched as the future of observability. A thread linking to a ClickHouse blog argues these formats could deliver low-cost, scalable, no-lockin observability [1].
Cost and scalability — Proponents say open-table-formats and lakehouses unlock cost savings and easier scaling across diverse data sources. The core idea is a single, open format that reduces duplication and vendor fragmentation, aiming for low-cost, scalable observability [1]. They argue that better data locality and parallel processing paths help handle multi-cloud workloads without spiraling prices.
Lock-in and openness — Openness is framed as a path to reducing vendor lock-in, letting teams mix and match tools more freely. That said, real-world interoperability and the pace of ecosystem momentum will determine how much lock-in actually fades [1].
Observability implications — The debate centers on how these formats influence monitoring visibility and data reliability. If formats standardize data representations and schemas, operators hope for clearer signals and easier cross-tool correlation; if not, gaps and compatibility headaches loom [1].
Bottom line: openness is on the table, but cost, scalability, and true lock-in remain the hard questions as we move into 2026 [1].
References
Are open-table-formats and lakehouses the future of observability?
Discussion on open-table-formats and lakehouses as future observability solutions in database architectures; contrasts, potential trade-offs about cost scalability and lock-in.
View source