From Kafka to ClickHouse: Understanding Integration Methods and Their Challenges

Real-time data processing is now essential for modern businesses. Many organizations use Apache Kafka for message streaming and ClickHouse for analytical processing. Integrating these powerful systems presents unique challenges for data teams.

These integrations power critical applications across industries. Financial services use them for fraud detection. E-commerce platforms implement dynamic inventory management. IoT deployments process millions of device readings for predictive maintenance. Kafka's streaming capabilities with ClickHouse's analytical power deliver insights neither system could achieve alone.

The challenge comes from their different design philosophies. Kafka functions as a distributed event log for delivering messages. ClickHouse is a columnar database designed for analytical queries. This mismatch creates integration complexities affecting consistency, performance, and operational overhead.

This article explores three approaches to Kafka-ClickHouse integration: the native Kafka Engine, ClickHouse ClickPipes, and Kafka Connect. We'll examine practical implementations, analyze tradeoffs, and help you select the right approach.

Understanding the Integration Challenge

Before diving into specific integration approaches, let's understand why connecting Kafka and ClickHouse presents unique challenges.

Kafka Architecture

Apache Kafka is a distributed streaming platform following a publish-subscribe model. It stores streams of records in topics, divided into partitions for scalability. Each partition is an ordered sequence of records with unique position offsets.

Kafka prioritizes durability, throughput, and scalability. Its distributed commit log lets consumers track progress through offset management, enabling various consistency guarantees.

ClickHouse Architecture

ClickHouse is a column-oriented OLAP database designed for high-performance analytics. It employs a distributed design with tables that can be partitioned across multiple nodes.

ClickHouse optimizes for query speed through columnar storage, vectorized execution, compression, and parallel processing. Its design choices affect integration with streaming systems:

1. Limited transaction support.

2. Append-mostly optimization.

3. Batch-oriented write patterns.

4. Eventually consistent distributed operations.

The Integration Gap

The challenge lies in bridging fundamentally different processing paradigms:

1. Message vs. Batch Processing: Kafka delivers individual messages while ClickHouse prefers batched inserts.
2. Consistency Models: Kafka supports exactly-once delivery while ClickHouse offers eventual consistency.
3. Offset Management: Tracking processed messages requires different strategies for each approach.
4. Schema Evolution: Integrations must handle schema changes between systems.

Let's explore the integration approaches with these challenges in mind.

Common Integration Patterns

Several architectural patterns have emerged as standards for Kafka-ClickHouse integration. Below are three of the most relevant:

Lambda Architecture

Lambda Architecture combines batch and stream processing:

• Speed Layer: Direct Kafka-to-ClickHouse integration for real-time results
• Batch Layer: Thorough batch pipeline for accuracy
• Serving Layer: Combines both views for complete results

Kafka Engine works well in the speed layer. Kafka Connect powers the batch layer with rich transformations. ClickPipes implementations typically stay within the managed cloud environment.

Kappa Architecture

Kappa Architecture simplifies Lambda by treating batch as a special case of stream processing:

• All data flows through Kafka as the central backbone
• Stream processing handles real-time and historical analysis
• ClickHouse stores raw events and pre-aggregated views

Kafka Connect suits Kappa implementations with its transformation capabilities. Kafka Engine can also work for simpler transformation needs.

CQRS Pattern

Command Query Responsibility Segregation separates write and read operations:

• Write operations go to operational databases
• Read operations access analytical stores
• Kafka serves as the replication mechanism

All three integration approaches support CQRS effectively.

Event Sourcing

Event Sourcing stores domain changes as an immutable sequence of events:

• Kafka maintains the event log
• ClickHouse stores event history and current state
• Materialized views reconstruct state from events

Kafka Engine with materialized views naturally implements this pattern. Kafka Connect offers more flexibility for complex processing.

Available Approaches

There are three primary approaches for integrating Kafka with ClickHouse, each leveraging different integration patterns, with distinct characteristics, advantages, and limitations:

1. Kafka Engine Approach: ClickHouse's native table engine for consuming Kafka data directly.
2. ClickPipes Approach: A managed cloud service for connecting Kafka to ClickHouse Cloud.
3. Kafka Connect Approach: Using the Kafka Connect framework with a ClickHouse connector.

Let's examine each approach.

Kafka Engine Approach

The Kafka Engine is ClickHouse's native integration for consuming data from Kafka. This built-in table engine reads directly from Kafka topics without additional components.

How the Kafka Engine Works

The Kafka Engine is a specialized table engine that connects to Kafka brokers. When you create a Kafka Engine table, ClickHouse starts consumers that poll the specified topics.

The Kafka Engine table doesn't store data. It's a gateway exposing Kafka messages as rows in a ClickHouse table. The data is only available during query execution. Running a SELECT query fetches new messages from Kafka.

To persist this data, pair the Kafka Engine table with a Materialized View that transforms incoming data and writes it to a standard ClickHouse table.

Architecture and Data Flow

The data flow in a Kafka Engine integration follows this pattern:

1. Producers send messages to a Kafka topic.
2. ClickHouse's Kafka Engine connects to the topic as a consumer.
3. A Materialized View processes messages from the Kafka Engine table.
4. The Materialized View inserts processed data into a storage table.
5. The storage table (usually MergeTree) holds the data for queries.

This separates data ingestion from storage, allowing independent optimization.

Implementation Example

Let's implement a practical example for user activity tracking. We'll create a pipeline capturing user events (page views, clicks, purchases), streaming them through Kafka, and making them available for real-time analytics in ClickHouse.

First, we need to set up our infrastructure with Kafka and ClickHouse:

Next, we need to create three key components in ClickHouse:

1. The target storage table with the MergeTree engine.
2. The Kafka Engine table that will consume from our Kafka topic.
3. A Materialized View that transfers data between them.

Here's how we implement this structure:

The key aspects to note in this implementation are:

1. The kafka_broker_list specifies the Kafka brokers to connect to.
2. The kafka_topic_list defines which topics to consume.
3. The kafka_group_name sets a unique consumer group for offset tracking.
4. The kafka_format parameter specifies how to parse Kafka messages.

The Materialized View:

• Triggers consumption of messages.
• Transforms data before storing it.

Let's see how data flows through this system by generating and sending some test events:

Once data is in ClickHouse, we can query it using standard SQL:

Available tables: ['user_events_kafka_engine', 'user_events_kafka_engine_mv', 'user_events_queue']
Current record count: 51
✅ Data is already available in ClickHouse

Sample records:
                               event_id    user_id event_type  \
0                            test-event  test-user       test   
1  8de8c9b8-1fbb-4eb4-941d-42f27c79fb1d    user_10     signup   
2  62807480-0673-42b9-a918-0c3a165a7a98    user_10      click   
3  f1ec74b9-c19f-4f89-966a-6fc3e6ba2711    user_10  page_view   
4  30b0ae42-eac1-478f-98c1-218e1aab52ac    user_10      click   

               event_time                                      properties  
0 2025-03-18 14:27:09.956                                  {"test": true}  
1 2025-03-18 14:27:09.979    {"source": "referral", "session_id": "3058"}  
2 2025-03-18 14:27:09.979    {"source": "referral", "session_id": "1989"}  
3 2025-03-18 14:27:09.979    {"source": "referral", "session_id": "5506"}  
4 2025-03-18 14:27:09.979  {"source": "mobile_app", "session_id": "2900"}  

Event counts by type:
  event_type  count
0      click     12
1      login     12
2     signup     10
3   purchase     10
4  page_view      6
5       test      1

Implementation Challenges

There are 6 key areas of challenge when deploying this solution in production we can discuss.

Offset Management

The Kafka Engine manages consumer offsets through the specified kafka_group_name. Unlike standard Kafka consumers that commit offsets to Kafka's internal __consumer_offsets topic, ClickHouse stores these offsets in its system tables.

This creates a potential risk: if you drop and recreate the Kafka Engine table, ClickHouse might lose track of consumed offsets, potentially leading to data duplication or loss. To mitigate this, you can explicitly set the kafka_auto_offset_reset parameter to control behavior when no offset is found.

Schema Evolution

When Kafka messages change their structure, you need to carefully update both the Kafka Engine table and Materialized View. This often requires creating new tables and views, then migrating data and consumers, a process that can introduce complexity and risk of data loss.

The lack of schema registry integration means version compatibility must be manually managed.

Error Handling Limitations

The Kafka Engine provides minimal error handling. If a message doesn't match the expected format, ClickHouse might silently skip it or stop processing. This makes producer-side data validation critical.

A common issue occurs when timestamp formats in Kafka messages don't match what ClickHouse expects:

Network Resilience Issues

The Kafka Engine lacks sophisticated retry and backoff mechanisms found in official Kafka clients. This increases sensitivity to network issues and cluster changes.

To improve resilience, configure multiple broker addresses and implement monitoring to detect connectivity problems:

Resource Consumption Monitoring

The Kafka Engine consumer runs within the ClickHouse process, sharing resources with query processing. Under high load, this creates resource contention affecting both ingestion and queries.

Monitor system metrics to identify potential resource constraints:

Proper resource allocation and monitoring are essential for maintaining consistent performance in production environments.

Performance Tuning

Performance tuning is essential for production. The Kafka Engine has numerous configuration parameters affecting throughput, latency, and resource usage:

💡

TIP

When optimizing the Kafka Engine for throughput, focus on these often-overlooked parameters:

• Increase kafka_max_block_size to 10,000+ for high-volume topics, but monitor memory usage.
• Set kafka_thread_per_consumer equal to the number of topic partitions for optimal parallelism.
• Adjust kafka_format_schemas_for_verify to reduce schema validation overhead in trusted environments.
• Consider implementing a custom external consumer group tracking table for critical pipelines.

The most effective tuning comes from matching Kafka topic partitions to ClickHouse's internal threading model. For MergeTree tables, aligning partition counts can significantly reduce resource contention.

Key parameters affecting performance include:

• kafka_max_block_size: Controls how many messages ClickHouse fetches in a single batch.
• kafka_thread_per_consumer and kafka_num_consumers: Determine parallelism level.
• kafka_poll_timeout_ms: Affects responsiveness vs. CPU efficiency.
• kafka_flush_interval_ms: Controls how frequently ClickHouse commits offsets.

Monitoring and Operations

Operating Kafka Engine in production requires monitoring:

1. Consumer lag: The difference between latest Kafka offset and committed ClickHouse offset.
2. Materialized view backlog: If the view can't keep up with incoming data.
3. Error rates: Parse errors and schema mismatches in logs.

You can query system tables to check consumer status:

💡

TIP

To accurately measure the true end-to-end latency in your Kafka-ClickHouse pipeline:

• Add an ingestion_timestamp field at the producer level using the producer's system time.
• Create a derived table in ClickHouse that calculates delay metrics:

• Set up alerts on both the processing delay (integration latency) and total latency (end-to-end).

This approach allows you to distinguish between delays introduced at different stages of your pipeline and target optimizations accordingly.

Pros & Cons

The following comparison adds context-specific weighting to help evaluate each approach for your particular use case. A score of 1-5 is provided for each factor across different scenarios, with 5 being the most advantageous.

When to Use the Kafka Engine Approach

The Kafka Engine is ideal for:

1. High-performance use cases where milliseconds matter.
2. Self-hosted environments with control over both systems.
3. Simple data transformation needs handled by Materialized Views.
4. Cost-sensitive deployments that can't afford additional components.

It may not suit:

1. Complex transformation requirements beyond basic SQL.
2. Teams without ClickHouse expertise.
3. Environments requiring extensive error handling.
4. Scenarios needing seamless schema evolution.
5. Organizations with strict separation between streaming and database teams.

ClickPipes Approach

ClickPipes is a managed, cloud-native approach for integrating Kafka with ClickHouse. Unlike the Kafka Engine, ClickPipes is a fully managed service with ClickHouse Cloud. This shifts from an infrastructure-focused model to a configuration-based service.

Cloud-Native Integration Architecture

ClickPipes operates within ClickHouse Cloud, establishing connections to external data sources and managing the entire ingestion process. Key components include:

1. ClickHouse Cloud: The managed ClickHouse service.
2. ClickPipes Service: The managed connector service.
3. External Kafka Cluster: Your Kafka deployment.
4. Target Tables: ClickHouse tables storing ingested data.

A major consideration: ClickPipes requires network connectivity from ClickHouse Cloud to your Kafka cluster. Your brokers must be accessible over the internet or through private connections that ClickHouse Cloud supports.

Implementation Requirements

Before implementing ClickPipes, there are several prerequisites to address:

1. ClickHouse Cloud Subscription: Only available with paid subscriptions.
2. Publicly Accessible Kafka: Brokers must be accessible to ClickHouse Cloud:
   • Public IP addresses and DNS names
   • Port 9092 (or 9094 for TLS) open
   • Proper authentication and encryption
3. Managed Kafka Service: Not required but simplifies setup.

For testing, tools like ngrok can temporarily expose local Kafka clusters. However, this isn't suitable for production due to security and reliability concerns.

Implementation Example with AWS MSK

Let's look at implementing ClickPipes integration using AWS MSK as our Kafka provider. This common enterprise setup addresses connectivity and security challenges.

First, you'll need to set up your AWS MSK cluster through AWS CLI or the AWS Console:

Once your MSK cluster is operational, you'll need to configure security groups to allow connectivity from ClickHouse Cloud's IP ranges:

With your Kafka cluster properly configured, you can send test data to verify connectivity before setting up ClickPipes:

Managed Kafka Services Comparison for ClickPipes

Below we have a comparison of three main managed Kafka services we can use with ClickPipes:

Confluent Cloud typically offers the simplest integration path with ClickPipes due to its native Schema Registry and straightforward authentication. Organizations heavily invested in AWS often choose MSK for integration with other AWS services. Aiven provides a strong middle ground with multi-cloud flexibility.

ClickPipes Configuration Process

Once your Kafka cluster is configured and accessible, set up ClickPipes through the ClickHouse Cloud console:

1. Navigate to ClickPipes: In the ClickHouse Cloud console, go to "Add data" > "Ingest data using ClickPipes"
2. Select Kafka Source: Choose Apache Kafka as your data source.
3. Configure Connection: Enter your Kafka cluster details.
   • Bootstrap servers: The broker endpoints from your MSK cluster
   • Authentication: Configure SASL/SCRAM or other authentication methods
   • TLS settings: Enable if using secured connections (recommended)
4. Configure Topic and Format: Select topic and data format.
   • Topic name: The Kafka topic to consume from
   • Format: Typically JSONEachRow for JSON messages
   • Consumer group: A unique identifier for offset tracking
5. Define Target Table: Create or select the ClickHouse table.
   • Table name: Where the data will be stored
   • Schema mapping: Map Kafka message fields to ClickHouse columns
   • Data transformations: Apply basic transformations during ingestion
6. Start the Integration: Review and activate the ClickPipes integration

Unlike the Kafka Engine approach, which requires SQL commands and manual configuration, ClickPipes provides a GUI-based setup that significantly simplifies the process.

💡

TIP

When securing ClickPipes connections to your Kafka cluster, implement these advanced security measures beyond basic authentication:

• Create dedicated Kafka ACLs that limit the service account to read-only access on specific topics.
• Implement strict IP-based filtering using security groups or firewall rules.
• Use TLS certificate pinning for mutual authentication.
• Set up network flow logs to monitor connection patterns.

For the most security-sensitive environments, consider using AWS PrivateLink or Azure Private Link to establish private connectivity rather than exposing Kafka over the public internet.

Data Validation and Monitoring

Once operational, validate the data flow and monitor performance:

ClickHouse Cloud provides built-in monitoring dashboards for ClickPipes integrations, allowing you to track:

• Messages processed per second.
• Integration errors and retries.
• Consumer lag metrics.
• Data volume ingested.

This eliminates the need to query system tables directly, which is required with Kafka Engine.

Implementation Challenges

As with the previous case, there are several challenges when using ClickPipes for integration. Let's discuss the four main ones in more detail.

Network Exposure and Security

The requirement to expose Kafka over the public internet introduces security considerations:

• Network Security: Kafka clusters must be exposed to ClickHouse Cloud IP ranges.
• Authentication: Strong authentication mechanisms become mandatory.
• TLS Encryption: All traffic should be encrypted.
• Access Control: Careful ACL configuration is needed.

For enterprises with strict security requirements, this exposure may present compliance challenges. Some organizations use PrivateLink or similar services for private connectivity.

Limited Configuration Options

ClickPipes offers fewer configuration parameters than Kafka Engine:

• Limited control over batch sizes and polling behavior
• Fewer options for handling parsing errors
• Restricted transformation capabilities

Complex transformations often require additional processing after data lands in ClickHouse.

Testing Complexity

Testing ClickPipes integrations presents unique challenges:

• Local Development: No straightforward way to test locally.
• Temporary Exposure: Tools like ngrok may be needed during development.
• Production Simulation: Difficult to simulate production conditions in test environments.

These testing challenges can slow development cycles and complicate CI/CD pipelines.

Cost Implications

Using ClickPipes involves several cost components:

• ClickHouse Cloud subscription.
• Managed Kafka service costs.
• Data transfer costs between cloud environments.
• Potential costs for private connectivity solutions.

Pros & Cons

The following comparison adds context-specific weighting to help evaluate this approach for your particular use case. A score of 1-5 is provided for each factor across different scenarios, with 5 being the most advantageous.

When to Use ClickPipes

ClickPipes is well-suited for:

1. Organizations already using ClickHouse Cloud wanting minimal operational overhead.
2. Teams with limited ClickHouse expertise benefiting from managed services.
3. Use cases requiring rapid deployment where simplified setup provides value.
4. Environments with existing cloud-based Kafka like AWS MSK or Confluent Cloud.

It may not be ideal for:

1. Organizations with strict security requirements prohibiting cloud-to-cloud transfers.
2. Cost-sensitive deployments where subscription models present challenges.
3. Applications requiring fine-grained control over ingestion behavior.
4. Scenarios needing complex transformations during ingestion.

Kafka Connect Approach

Kafka Connect is a framework within the Apache Kafka ecosystem for building scalable, reliable data pipelines. Unlike previous methods, Kafka Connect introduces a separate component—the Connect cluster—that sits between Kafka and ClickHouse.

Kafka Connect Architecture

At its core, Kafka Connect implements a worker-based distributed system:

1. Connect Workers: JVM processes executing connector logic.
2. Connectors: Plugins defining how to interact with external systems.
3. Tasks: Units of parallelism performing data movement.
4. Converters: Components transforming data between formats.
5. Transforms: Optional components modifying records.

The ClickHouse Sink Connector efficiently writes data from Kafka topics into ClickHouse tables. It manages batching, error handling, and data type conversion.

Deployment Models

Kafka Connect supports two deployment models:

1. Standalone Mode: Single process runs all connectors and tasks.
2. Distributed Mode: Multiple worker processes form a Connect cluster.

For production ClickHouse integrations, distributed mode provides advantages in throughput, fault tolerance, and manageability.

Implementation Example

Let's walk through implementing a Kafka Connect integration with ClickHouse. First, we need to add the Kafka Connect service to our infrastructure:

After starting the services, we need to create a target table in ClickHouse:

With the infrastructure in place, we can configure and deploy the ClickHouse Sink Connector by submitting a connector configuration to the Kafka Connect REST API:

The connector configuration demonstrates several important capabilities:

• Batch size control: Optimizing write performance to ClickHouse.
• Retry strategy: Handling temporary failures with exponential backoff.
• Schema handling: Managing data format conversion.

Once configured, we can send sample messages to Kafka and verify they reach ClickHouse:

Advanced Transformation Capabilities

A distinguishing feature of Kafka Connect is its extensive transformation capabilities through Single Message Transforms (SMTs). These modify records as they flow through the connector pipeline without custom code.

💡

TIP

To handle schema evolution gracefully in Kafka Connect pipelines:

• Implement the Kafka Schema Registry with FORWARD compatibility mode

• Use Avro or Protobuf formats instead of JSON for better evolution support

• Create a Schema Migration Testing framework that validates compatibility between message versions

• Add SMTs that selectively handle different schema versions:

The most robust approach combines defensive coding in the connector with a formal schema governance process for approving breaking changes.

For example, you can add timestamp extraction, field renaming, or filtering in the connector configuration:

These transformation capabilities give the Kafka Connect approach significant advantages for complex data integration scenarios.

Monitoring and Management

Kafka Connect provides a rich REST API for monitoring and managing connectors. This simplifies operations and enables integration with existing monitoring tools.

You can check connector status using API calls:

For production deployments, tools such as Prometheus and Grafana can monitor Kafka Connect metrics exposed through JMX, providing visibility:

• Throughput (records processed per second)
• Latency (time from Kafka to ClickHouse)
• Error rates and task restarts
• Offset lag by topic and partition

Implementation Challenges

There are four main challenges we can focus on with this approach:

Infrastructure Complexity

Kafka Connect requires additional infrastructure components:

• JVM-based workers need careful memory configuration.
• Distributed deployment requires coordination and monitoring.
• Multiple configuration topics must be managed.
• Connector plugin management adds deployment complexity.

This operational overhead can be significant compared to the Kafka Engine approach.

Performance Overhead

The additional processing hop introduces overhead:

• Higher end-to-end latency (~20ms compared to ~5ms for Kafka Engine).
• Additional CPU and memory requirements.
• Network transfer between Connect workers and ClickHouse.

Optimizing requires careful tuning of batch sizes, worker counts, and task allocation.

Connector Versioning

The ClickHouse connector evolves independently from both Kafka and ClickHouse:

• Connector updates require testing and validation.
• Version mismatches can cause subtle bugs.
• Upgrading requires careful planning.

A common pattern is to use blue/green deployment for connector upgrades.

Error Handling Complexity

Configuring effective error handling mechanisms in Kafka Connect requires planning:

• Dead letter queues for handling parsing failures.
• Retry strategies for temporary outages.
• Error reporting and alerting integration.

The default error handling may not be appropriate for all use cases, requiring custom configuration:

Scalability Considerations

A significant advantage of Kafka Connect is its scalability model:

1. Horizontal Scaling: Add more worker instances to increase throughput.
2. Task Parallelism: Configure multiple tasks per connector.
3. Resource Isolation: Deploy specialized workers for high-demand connectors.

This allows handling growing data volumes without proportional increases in ClickHouse capacity:

Pros & Cons

The following comparison adds context-specific weighting to help evaluate this approach for your particular use case. A score of 1-5 is provided for each factor across different scenarios, with 5 being the most advantageous.

When to Use Kafka Connect

Kafka Connect is well-suited for:

1. Complex data integration requiring transformation and enrichment.
2. Multi-destination architectures where data flows to multiple systems.
3. Organizations with existing Kafka Connect deployments.
4. High-volume use cases benefiting from independent scaling.

It may not be ideal for:

1. Simple, low-latency integrations where Kafka Engine provides better performance.
2. Resource-constrained environments that can't accommodate additional infrastructure.
3. Small-scale deployments prioritizing operational simplicity.
4. Organizations standardized on ClickHouse Cloud where ClickPipes provides a managed alternative.

Approach Comparison

Let's compare the main characteristics of each integration approach:

Basic Dimensions

The following table provides a side-by-side comparison of the most important factors to consider when selecting an integration approach:

Now let's explore some of these dimensions in more detail to understand their real-world implications.

Performance

Performance is often a primary consideration for real-time analytics systems. The following chart illustrates the relative performance characteristics of each approach:

Note: This is a relative comparison based on architectural characteristics. Actual performance depends on specific implementations and infrastructure choices.

As shown in the chart, the Kafka Engine generally provides the lowest latency due to its direct integration within ClickHouse. However, this performance advantage comes with trade-offs in other areas like transformation capabilities and error handling. For many applications, the slightly higher latency of ClickPipes or Kafka Connect is acceptable given their additional features.

Cost Sensitivity

Cost is another critical factor when selecting an integration approach. The three options have fundamentally different cost structures:

Note: This is a relative comparison based on architectural characteristics. Actual costs depend on specific implementations and infrastructure choices.

The Kafka Engine typically has the lowest direct costs since it doesn't require additional components beyond your existing Kafka and ClickHouse infrastructure. However, it may incur higher operational costs due to increased complexity of monitoring and maintenance. ClickPipes offers predictable subscription-based pricing but may become expensive at scale. Kafka Connect requires additional infrastructure but offers cost flexibility for multi-purpose deployments.

Schema Evolution

As your data structures evolve over time, the ability to handle schema changes becomes increasingly important:

Note: This comparison is based on the architectural characteristics of each approach. Actual implementation difficulty may vary based on specific versions and configurations.

Kafka Connect paired with Schema Registry offers the most robust solution for schema evolution, supporting forward and backward compatibility with minimal disruption. The Kafka Engine requires more careful management, often necessitating dual write patterns during transitions. ClickPipes provides managed schema evolution capabilities that work well for simple changes but may struggle with complex transformations.

Understanding these key dimensions helps you evaluate which integration approach best matches your specific requirements and constraints.

Common Limitations

All three approaches share certain limitations that data engineers should consider:

1. Limited Transaction Support: None of the approaches provides true ACID transactions across Kafka and ClickHouse.
2. At-least-once Semantics: All three methods typically deliver at-least-once semantics, potentially requiring deduplication strategies in ClickHouse.
3. Schema Validation Gaps: Kafka message validation against ClickHouse schema expectations requires additional work in all approaches.
4. Offset Management Complexity: All methods require careful offset tracking to handle failures and restarts properly.
5. Performance-Transformation Tradeoff: More complex transformations reduce throughput regardless of the approach chosen.

High-Volume Production Considerations

For high-volume production deployments, additional factors become critical:

1. Fault Tolerance:
   • Kafka Engine: Relies on ClickHouse's fault tolerance.
   • ClickPipes: Managed fault tolerance in the cloud.
   • Kafka Connect: Distributed mode provides worker redundancy.
2. Monitoring and Alerting:
   • Kafka Engine: Requires custom monitoring of system tables.
   • ClickPipes: Provides built-in monitoring dashboards.
   • Kafka Connect: Offers rich metrics but requires integration with monitoring systems.
3. Schema Evolution Strategy:
   • All approaches: Implement forward/backward compatibility in message formats.
   • Kafka Connect: Best integration with Kafka Schema Registry.
   • ClickPipes/Kafka Engine: Require careful coordination of schema changes.
4. Security Implementations:
   • Kafka Engine: Internal network communication is simpler to secure.
   • ClickPipes: Requires secure internet exposure of Kafka.
   • Kafka Connect: Can run in the same security zone as Kafka.

Key Decision Factors

When choosing between these approaches, consider these critical factors:

1. Performance Requirements: If minimal latency is crucial, the Kafka Engine provides the best performance by eliminating intermediate hops.
2. Operational Model: Consider your team's expertise and preference for self-managed infrastructure versus cloud services.
   • ClickPipes requires minimal operational overhead but necessitates a cloud commitment.
   • Kafka Engine leverages existing ClickHouse expertise.
   • Kafka Connect requires additional operational knowledge but offers more flexibility.
3. Data Transformation Needs: Assess the complexity of transformations required:
   • Simple transformations: Kafka Engine is sufficient.
   • Complex transformations: Kafka Connect excels.
   • Basic mapping with managed service: ClickPipes works well.
4. Scaling Strategy: Each approach scales differently:
   • Kafka Engine: Scales with ClickHouse infrastructure.
   • ClickPipes: Automatic scaling with cloud service tiers.
   • Kafka Connect: Independent scaling of worker clusters.
5. Cost Sensitivity: Budget constraints influence the optimal choice:
   • Lowest infra cost: Kafka Engine (no additional components).
   • Highest predictability: ClickPipes (subscription-based).
   • Most variable: Kafka Connect (infrastructure + operational costs).

To simplify the decision process, consider this example flowchart:

When No Solution is Enough

Imagine a large healthcare analytics company needs to integrate their clinical data pipeline with ClickHouse for real-time patient monitoring. Their requirements include:

• Process medical sensor data from 100,000+ devices with guaranteed delivery.
• Implement HIPAA-compliant encryption of PHI data fields.
• Apply complex field-level transformations with context-aware rules.
• Ensure exactly-once semantics to prevent duplicate records.
• Support dynamic schema evolution without downtime.
• Maintain comprehensive audit logs for compliance.
• Deploy in an air-gapped environment with no cloud connectivity.

Do any of these constraints sound familiar? Let's see how standard approaches measure up:

Kafka Engine

• ✅ Performance meets requirements at ~5ms latency.
• ❌ Lacks exactly-once semantics, risking duplicate records.
• ❌ Limited transformation capabilities for context-aware rules.
• ❌ Insufficient audit logging for compliance.
• ❌ Schema evolution requires disruptive changes.

ClickPipes

• ❌ Cloud-based solution incompatible with air-gapped environment.
• ❌ HIPAA compliance concerns with PHI data in cloud processing.
• ❌ Limited transformation capabilities for complex medical data.
• ✅ Good built-in monitoring and alerting.
• ❌ Requires internet connectivity.

Kafka Connect

• ✅ Rich transformation capabilities through SMTs.
• ❌ Cannot guarantee exactly-once semantics for critical data.
• ❌ Performance overhead concerning for time-sensitive monitoring.
• ❌ Complex to deploy in an air-gapped environment.
• ✅ Better schema evolution with Schema Registry.

None of the standard solutions fully addresses their specialized requirements. Have you encountered similar gaps with your own integration needs?

Custom Solution

What a custom solution would look like:

1. Exactly-once Delivery: Two-phase commit protocol with checkpointing.
2. Field-level Security: HIPAA-compliant encryption for sensitive fields only.
3. Advanced Transformations: Domain-specific transformation modules for clinical data.
4. Comprehensive Auditing: Detailed tracking of every record's journey.
5. Air-gap Compatibility: Fully isolated networks with no external dependencies.
6. Performance Optimization: ~8ms latency, balancing performance and guarantees.

This scenario illustrates an important reality: organizations with specialized requirements sometimes need to look beyond off-the-shelf solutions. When compliance, security, and reliability cannot be compromised, custom development may be the only viable path.

What specialized requirements does your organization have that might push you beyond standard integration approaches?

Final Thoughts

When connecting Kafka to ClickHouse, remember that no single approach works for everyone. Choose based on your latency, scale, and transformation needs. Understanding how these systems fundamentally differ helps create better integrations. Don't overlook operational aspects like monitoring and maintenance, they often matter more than technical features for long-term success. Specialized requirements (like our healthcare example) continue to drive innovation in this space. As both technologies gain popularity, expect further advancements in how they work together.

---

If you are looking for an easy and open-source solution to solve duplicates and JOINs at ClickHouse, check out what we are building with GlassFlow: Link

---

References

• Apache Kafka Documentation
• Kafka Connect Framework
• Kafka Streams
• ClickHouse Documentation
• Kafka Engine Reference