Blog
Why The World Needs Flarion. Read More
Blog

AI Agents Are the New Users of Data Infrastructure

AI agents now write the SQL and submit the Spark jobs human engineers used to. What changes for a data platform when the main user is not a person.
By
Ran Reichman
•
read time
•
March 30, 2026
Heading 2

The consumer of data infrastructure is changing. For two decades, the primary user of platforms like Spark, Ray, and Trino has been a human engineer - someone who writes queries, tunes configurations, debugs failures, and builds intuition about their cluster over months of operation. Now, AI agents are increasingly the ones writing SQL, submitting Spark jobs, orchestrating ETL pipelines, and running analytical workloads. Enterprises are increasingly adopting agentic data engineering workflows. At Flarion, we see a few key dynamics at play.

‍

Tuning Will Converge - Then What?

Configuration tuning is getting automated. Agents can already follow runbooks, detect common failure patterns, and iterate on Spark configurations across runs. Auto-tuning systems are getting smarter. Over time, the combination of agents, automated tooling, and better platform defaults will squeeze most of the available performance out of configuration space. Executor sizing, partition counts, memory fractions, shuffle parameters - these will increasingly be handled by software rather than tribal knowledge.

Once configurations are well-tuned, the remaining performance gap is bounded by the execution engine itself. Spark's JVM-based, row-oriented architecture has fundamental overhead - garbage collection pauses, serialization costs, per-row function call overhead - that no amount of configuration tuning can eliminate. You can tune a Spark job perfectly and still leave 30-60% of potential performance on the table because of the engine's underlying execution model.

Flarion operates below this ceiling. Its native execution engine, built in Rust on Apache Arrow and DataFusion, replaces Spark's physical operators with vectorized execution. The gains come from a fundamentally different execution model. This means Flarion's acceleration stacks on top of whatever tuning an agent or auto-tuner has already done. Even the most optimized jobs get meaningfully faster.

For agents, this is the critical property. After exhausting configuration changes, an agent has two levers: continue building workload-specific tuning rules (low marginal benefit), or enable Flarion in a single configuration line and get 30-60% improvement immediately. In practice, it will do both - but the plugin delivers value on day one while tuning accumulates value over months.

‍

Separation of Concerns

There's also a trust dimension. Even as agents become capable of modifying code and infrastructure, most organizations won't want them to. Separation of concerns applies to agents the same way it applies to engineering teams: the system writing analytical queries should not also be the system reconfiguring the cluster, rewriting pipeline code, or modifying deployment infrastructure. Giving an agent broad permissions to change Spark configurations, refactor ETL logic, or resize clusters introduces risk that most platform teams won't accept.

This means agents will operate within boundaries. They'll submit workloads, not redesign them. They'll use tools, not modify the toolchain. The performance improvements available to an agent are limited to what can be achieved without crossing those boundaries.

Flarion fits precisely within these boundaries - a single configuration change that delivers material performance gains without touching application code, cluster settings, or deployment infrastructure. The agent stays in its lane. The acceleration happens underneath.

‍

Agents Are Measurement-Driven

Agents evaluate tools the way engineers wish they could: purely on observed results. An agent running a Spark job with Flarion enabled will observe that the job completed 40% faster at the same resource cost. It will observe this consistently across runs. Same input, same output, less time, less money. The signal is clean and unambiguous.

This matters because agents will increasingly be the ones deciding which tools to use within their permitted boundaries. They'll A/B test configurations, track cost-per-query over time, and converge on whatever delivers the best results. Tools that provide clear, repeatable value survive this selection process. Tools that require persuasion or organizational buy-in to demonstrate value don't - because agents aren't amenable to persuasion.

Flarion's 30-60% acceleration on real production workloads, validated across companies processing billions of records daily, is exactly the kind of signal that agents optimize for.

‍

The Zero-Config Threshold

The combination of bounded permissions and measurement-driven evaluation creates clear selection pressure on infrastructure. The platforms that agents will adopt are the ones that cross what might be called the zero-config threshold: the point where a tool can be activated and deliver value without requiring expertise.

Consider what an agent requires of data infrastructure. First, activation must be trivial - a single parameter, a plugin, a flag. Something that's easily testable and verifiable. Second, failure modes must be graceful. If something isn't supported, the system should fall back silently rather than throw an error the agent must handle. Agents are poor at diagnosing infrastructure-specific failures; they need systems that degrade predictably rather than fail unexpectedly. Third, the cost model must be transparent. In cloud environments, wall-clock time is cost. An agent optimizing for efficiency needs tools where faster execution directly equals lower spend, without requiring hardware-specific provisioning decisions.

There's a broader principle at work here: infrastructure designed to be usable by an agent will also be easier for a human. Every property that makes a tool agent-friendly - trivial activation, graceful fallback, transparent cost - also makes it friendlier to the human engineer who doesn't have time to read a tuning guide. Building for agents raises the floor for everyone.

Flarion crosses this threshold by design. Its native execution engine intercepts Spark's physical execution plan and replaces supported operators with vectorized native execution. Unsupported operations fall back transparently to Spark. The agent never sees a Flarion-specific error. It never needs to know which operations are accelerated and which aren't. The entire acceleration layer is invisible to the caller, which is precisely what makes it usable by an agent.

‍

Why Battle-Tested Ecosystems Win

Agents will prefer established ecosystems for the same reasons enterprises do: proven reliability at scale, broad connector support, extensive documentation that language models can reason about, and operational patterns that are well-understood. Spark processes petabytes daily across thousands of organizations. Ray orchestrates ML workloads at companies pushing the boundaries of model training. These platforms have accumulated years of production hardening that no new system can replicate quickly.

Making these ecosystems perform better without requiring expertise is where the real leverage lies. Flarion takes this approach across engines. Today it accelerates Spark workloads across every major deployment - open-source Spark, EMR, Dataproc, Databricks, and Spark on Kubernetes. The same Rust-based execution engine extends to Ray Data pipelines and Trino. An agent building a multi-engine analytical workflow gets consistent acceleration everywhere, through the same mechanism: enable the plugin, get faster results. No engine-specific optimization logic. No architectural trade-offs to evaluate.

This also means no new attack surface. Flarion runs as an in-process plugin inside the existing environment. No data leaves the perimeter. An agent can enable acceleration without triggering security reviews or compliance concerns - a friction reducer that matters enormously for enterprise adoption of agentic workflows.

‍

Where This Goes

The logical endpoint of this trend is outcome-oriented infrastructure - systems where agents submit workloads with constraints like "as cheap as possible, under 20 minutes" and the platform figures out the rest. The infrastructure handles resource allocation, configuration tuning, hardware routing, and failure recovery autonomously.

Flarion is building toward this future. The vision is autonomous execution where workloads are submitted with SLA targets and the system handles everything else - auto-tuning, auto-scaling, auto-recovery. The interface an agent actually wants: declare the outcome, let the infrastructure deliver it.

The building blocks are here today. A native execution engine that eliminates JVM overhead. Vectorized processing that leverages modern hardware. Transparent fallback that guarantees compatibility. Cross-engine support that works wherever the workload runs.

The agents are already here. The question is which platforms are ready for them.

‍

Resources

Related Posts

Blog
This is some text inside of a div block.
Why the World Needs Flarion

Why we built Flarion: the cost of processing large data volumes, the pressure for faster results, and the approach we took to both.

read time
-
November 27, 2024

Did you know that data-driven organizations spend up to 40% of their IT budgets on data processing alone?

As organizations scale their data processing capabilities, two critical challenges emerge: the mounting costs of processing big data and the pressing need for faster performance. Today, we're sharing our journey and explaining why Flarion is transforming how organizations leverage their data assets while staying competitive in an increasingly data-driven world.

The Journey to Better Data Processing

Through years of experience across diverse industries, Flarion’s co-founders witnessed the universal struggle of escalating data processing costs and performance bottlenecks.

During his years building data processing systems for mass-scale consumer applications and autonomous vehicles, Ran experienced firsthand how organizations struggled with the growing costs and performance demands of expanding datasets. In consumer applications, better insights can help create great experiences for hundreds of millions of people, but the high computational costs and processing limitations often make this prohibitively expensive. In autonomous vehicles, data processing at scale allows us to understand and tackle the toughest "long tail" challenges, but technical limitations can make this slow and cost-inefficient.

Through his extensive work with enterprises across various industries, Udi observed a consistent pattern: organizations were hitting both a performance and cost ceiling in their data processing capabilities. Despite significant investments in infrastructure and talent, companies found themselves constrained by processing limitations that held back their ability to launch new features or products while managing escalating infrastructure costs.

The Evolution of Data Processing Needs

The landscape of data processing has evolved dramatically. What started as simple analytics has transformed into complex data pipelines processing hundreds of terabytes daily. These diverse challenges underline the pressing need for solutions that address both speed and cost at scale.

In automotive, processing speed directly impacts vehicle safety and performance, while processing costs affect vehicle affordability and market competitiveness. In financial services, faster data processing enables real-time decision-making and better risk assessment, but the infrastructure costs of high-frequency trading and real-time analytics can quickly erode profit margins. For e-commerce companies, efficient data processing means better customer recommendations and inventory management, yet the cost of processing massive customer datasets across global markets can be prohibitive. Almost every industry relies heavily on efficient data processing and analytics, making both speed and cost optimization critical factors in maintaining competitive advantage.

A New Approach to Performance

Traditional approaches to improving data processing often involve extensive code changes, specialized expertise, or specific deployment requirements. For enterprises with massive legacy codebases, these solutions are often impractical or impossible to implement, creating additional complexity without solving the fundamental challenges of performance and cost efficiency.

We built Flarion with a different vision: what if organizations could dramatically improve their data processing performance without changing their code or disrupting existing workflows? With new Spark, Hadoop and Ray execution engines, we've created a solution that delivers up to 3x performance improvement while maintaining robust reliability and full compatibility. Most importantly, Flarion can be implemented in just 5 minutes, requiring minimal effort from organizations looking to modernize their data stack.

Enabling Innovation Through Efficiency

The impact of accelerated data processing extends far beyond just faster completion times. When organizations can process their data more efficiently and cost-effectively, they can explore new use cases, launch innovative features, and focus on extracting value from their data rather than managing infrastructure costs.

For AI and machine learning applications, efficient data processing is becoming increasingly crucial. The ability to process large datasets quickly and reliably can mean the difference between a successful model deployment and a missed opportunity. With Flarion, organizations can focus on innovation rather than infrastructure optimization, all while maintaining their existing codebase and operations.

The Future of Data Processing

As we enter an era where data drives competitive advantage, organizations need solutions that enable them to process more data, faster and more cost-effectively. The future of data processing isn't just about handling today's workloads - it's about being ready for tomorrow's challenges while managing costs sustainably.

With Flarion, organizations are not just keeping pace—they’re leading the charge into a data-driven future. Our solution enables organizations to unlock the full potential of their data assets, whether they're running data processing in the cloud or on-premises. By delivering significant performance improvements through advanced optimization techniques, we're helping organizations process their data more efficiently while reducing their infrastructure costs. Most importantly, we're doing this in a way that respects the reality of enterprise systems - with a solution that can be implemented in minutes, not months.

The future of data processing should empower organizations to focus on innovation and value creation without being held back by legacy infrastructure or rising costs.

At Flarion, we're making that future a reality.

Featured Blog
Blog
The Data Processing Honey Badger: Why Spark Persists

read time
-
September 10, 2026

Development on Apache Spark started at Berkeley in 2009, and the first production release shipped on May 30, 2014. In the twelve years since, it has become the analytics workhorse for most of the large corporations in the world, across industries and scale, from seed-stage startups to Fortune 10 enterprises. Every year or so someone declares it old, past its peak, saddled with the JVM, and generally "legacy." And every year there is more of it. What accounts for the disconnect? In this post we'll walk through what we see across customer deployments and why we expect that in ten years there will still be a whole lot of Spark, and probably much more than there is today.

Infinite Scale

Spark scales very well. It’s not rare to see customers running workloads reading dozens of TB, while at the same time other customers process a few GB per workload. The result: for data engineering teams who don’t know how much data they’ll need to process, it’s a clean and easy decision to adopt Spark.

Network Effects

While it’s quite easy to use Spark, especially with PySpark, it’s not easy to deploy it and maintain it. But once the data platform adopts the tooling and learns how to maintain Spark, it is rarely motivated to migrate a piece of critical infrastructure to an unproven alternative, and instead are motivated to push more people to use Spark.

The Challenge of Migrating

Large companies can have thousands of jobs running at any given time, spread across the entire organization. The idea of pushing the various teams to migrate to a new platform is usually a complete non-starter. Oftentimes even gradually moving to systems like Ray is unwelcome due to the cost of maintaining multipledata platforms.

A First Class Citizen in the Data Lake

Delta Lake, Iceberg, and Hudi were each born with Spark as the reference implementation. The result is that Spark works well out-of-the-box with all three, while other systems are gradually adding support. Engineering teams want the best and most recent lakehouse technology and generally Spark supports it. .

Extensibility

Spark is easy to extend without forking. Catalyst exposes optimizer rules, planning strategies, and catalog plugins. DataSource V2 lets anyone teach Spark to read a new system. User defined functions (UDFs) let teams introduce Python or Scala logic into the middle of a pipeline without leaving the framework. Plug-ins allow the introduction of new libraries into the system. The result is that the thing people would otherwise leave Spark to get, a new connector, a custom optimization, a domain-specific function library, usually shows up inside Spark instead.

The Competition

Flink is used for some streaming use cases, Ray for AI use cases, Trino for interactive SQL, DuckDB and Polars for data that fits on one machine. Data warehouses with proprietary engines are taking some share. But at this point nobody is really trying to invent a new full-fledged system to replace Spark. The competition is either specializing in a lane or building underneath it.

Improved Engines

In Spark, the underlying engine is not static. The API hasn’t changed much since DataFrames arrived, but adding Tungsten improved performance with whole stage code generation that’s close to the hardware, while query optimizations, fast paths, and new operators also make the same workload faster without code changes. Databricks added Photon, we produced Flarion, and open source brought Gluten and Comet. It’s possible to stay on Spark and get modern performance, similar to how PostgreSQL keeps getting better and adding functionality without the API changing.

Summing Up

The Spark API is likely going to be with us for a long time, but under the hood a lot is going to change. Piece by piece the engine is being replaced, and it's plausible that in ten years none of the original execution code will be left, while every job still runs and every DataFrame still looks the same. It's the Ship of Theseus, except in this version the ship gets faster with every plank. 

‍

Featured Blog
Blog
The Hard Part of Upgrading Spark Versions Isn’t the Code

AI agents can now rewrite Spark jobs for upgrades. Slack, Uber, and Facebook's migrations show the real work: proving the output data didn't change.

read time
-
August 18, 2026

A few weeks ago AWS shipped the Spark Upgrade Agent, an AI agent that migrates Spark jobs to Spark 4.0. You point it at a repo, it rewrites deprecated APIs, adjusts for behavioral changes, updates the build for Scala 2.13, submits the result to an EMR cluster, and iterates on failures until the job runs. It handles both Scala and PySpark, and it works the way you'd hope an agent would: plan, transform, validate, repeat. The potential payoff is large - newer Spark versions have better performance and years of accumulated bug fixes.

It looks like a good tool and data teams looking into a Spark migration should consider it, but what we’ve found is that in the enterprise, rewriting code isn’t the main impediment to upgrading Spark workloads. Spark programs are part of complex pipelines, parts of which are poorly understood or maintained, and making changes to a sensitive system is inherently risky. There’s no guarantee that the output data will actually remain the same, and data integrity is the fundamental challenge of completing such a migration.

Several companies have written in detail about major Spark upgrades, and the data integrity challenge is a recurring theme.

Slack

Slack's migration from Spark 2 to Spark 3 took about a year across 60+ EMR clusters and 40+ teams. They saw some code-level breakage: `RAND()` in join keys became an `AnalysisException`, some casts that Spark 2 tolerated started failing, the `Greatest` function handled NULLs differently than its Hive counterpart. Validation was a much larger effort. For billing pipelines, Slack required exact matches, building test tables from production data on Spark 3 and running `EXCEPT` and `COUNT` comparisons in Trino against the Spark 2 outputs, with a Python framework for digging into every discrepancy. The discrepancies weren't all bugs. Non-deterministic row ordering, timestamp variations, and genuine semantic differences between Hive and Spark implementations all produce diffs that need to be investigated. Some are noise, some are real regressions.

Uber

Uber's version of this is bigger and more instructive. They migrated from Spark 2.4 to 3.3 with over two million Spark applications running daily. The code transformation was automated with Polyglot Piranha, their structural rewrite tool. It parses the source code into an AST, matches patterns, and applies transformation rules, including inserting legacy flags like `spark.sql.legacy.allowUntypedScalaUDF` where old behavior had to be preserved. This scaled well. The problem that shaped the whole project was stated plainly: "We had over 40,000 Spark apps, so we couldn't decentralize the data validation." No staging environment, no test cases, no way to ask every team to eyeball their own outputs.

So the flagship engineering artifact of Uber's Spark upgrade wasn't actually a code migrator but Iron Dome: a shadow-testing framework which runs the migrated job against production inputs, rewrites output paths at runtime so results land in staging instead of production, puts guardrails at the Hadoop FileSystem interface so a misrouted write can't touch real data, then compares the shadow output against the production run and only marks the job migrated when they agree. 

Facebook

None of this is specific to the Spark 2-to-3 transition, or even to Spark versions. When Facebook moved Hive workloads onto Spark SQL back in 2017, they ran shadow pipelines writing to tables suffixed `_spark_shadow` so downstream jobs were never exposed, used count checks as a cheap first filter, and reached for full hash validation of outputs only reluctantly (because, as they put it, the hash validation was "sometimes even heavier than the query itself.") Funny enough, proving the new engine produced the same answer could cost more compute than producing the answer. They note that non-deterministic UDFs made validation hard, the same diff-adjudication problem Slack hit eight years later.

Takeaway

In the enterprise, migrations are rightfully considered risky projects that take time and incur risk. This is especially true in the age of AI given that the things that AI doesn’t necessarily deliver are also the riskiest parts of the migration - edge cases, data integrity, the long tail, etc. This isn’t to say that AI can’t help with building tooling for a migration, it clearly can, but usually an agent isn’t going to do the trick alone.

At Flarion, a major goal of ours is to give users the best possible performance and access to modern features without requiring a code migration. If you can get the benefits of Spark 4.2 while staying on Spark 3.4 then that’s a huge time save and reduction in risk. Of course, the data integrity problem doesn’t disappear, it’s now Flarion’s responsibility. One we’re happy to shoulder.

‍

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.