Architectural Resilience in Enterprise Data Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Data Vault 2.0, Dimensional Modeling, and Hybrid Frameworks in Secure, High-Volume Environments
Keywords:
Data Vault 2.0, Data Warehousing, Dimensional Modeling, Big Data ArchitectureAbstract
Background: As enterprises grapple with exponential data growth and stringent regulatory requirements, the choice of data warehousing methodology has become critical. Traditional approaches, such as Inmon’s normalized models and Kimball’s dimensional models, face significant challenges regarding schema adaptability and real-time integration.
Methods: This study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of Data Vault 2.0 against traditional data warehousing methodologies. Utilizing a theoretical framework based on recent performance metrics, security protocols, and automation capabilities, we evaluate these models within high-volume, secure environments, specifically focusing on healthcare and financial data contexts.
Results: The analysis indicates that while Dimensional Modeling retains superiority in query performance for end-user reporting, Data Vault 2.0 demonstrates superior resilience in data ingestion, auditability, and handling schema drift. The decoupling of business keys (Hubs) from context (Satellites) allows for non-destructive schema changes, a vital feature for modern agile data teams. Furthermore, the inclusion of Hash Keys facilitates massive parallel loading, significantly reducing ETL windows compared to sequence-based surrogate keys.
Conclusion: We conclude that a hybrid approach—leveraging Data Vault for the Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) layer and Dimensional Modeling for the Data Mart layer—offers the optimal balance of agility and performance. Additionally, emerging technologies such as Large Language Models (LLMs) and automated prompt engineering are identified as key accelerators for reducing the complexity of Data Vault implementation, enabling more robust and secure data ecosystems.
Downloads
References
1. Helskyaho, H.; Ruotsalainen, L.; Männistö, T. Defining Data Model Quality Metrics for Data Vault 2.0 Model Evaluation. Inventions 2024, 9, 21.
2. Inmon, W.H.; Imhoff, C.; Sousa, R. Corporate Information Factory, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-0-471-43750-5.
3. Smith, J.; Elshnoudy, I.A. A Comparative Analysis of Data Warehouse Design Methodologies for Enterprise Big Data and Analytics. Emerg. Trends Mach. Intell. Big Data 2023, 15, 16–29.
4. Giebler, C.; Gröger, C.; Hoos, E.; Schwarz, H.; Mitschang, B. Modeling Data Lakes with Data Vault: Practical Experiences, Assessment, and Lessons Learned. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2019), Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 4–7 November 2019; Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Applications; pp. 63–77.
5. Vines, A.; Samoila, A. An Overview of Data Vault Methodology and Its Benefits. Inform. Econ. 2023, 27, 15–24.
6. Yessad, L.; Labiod, A. Comparative Study of Data Warehouses Modeling Approaches: In-mon, Kimball, and Data Vault. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on System Reliability and Science (ICSRS), Paris, France, 15 November 2016; pp. 95–99.
7. Naamane, Z.; Jovanovic, V. Effectiveness of Data Vault compared to Dimensional Data Marts on Overall Performance of a Data Warehouse System. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues 2016, 13, 16.
8. Vines, A. Performance Evaluation of Data Vault and Dimensional Modeling: Insights from TPC-DS Dataset Analysis. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Informatics in Economy (IE 2024), Timisoara, Romania, 23–24 May 2024; Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; Volume 426, pp. 27–37.
9. Helskyaho, H. Towards Automating Database Designing. In Proceedings of the 34th Conference of Open Innovations Association (FRUCT), Riga, Latvia, 15–17 November 2023; pp 41–48.
10. Ggaliwango, M.; Nakayiza, H.R.; Jjingo, D.; Nakatumba-Nabende, J. Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the Data Intelligence and Cognitive Informatics (ICDICI 2023), Tirunelveli, India, 27–28 June 2023; pp. 387–402.
11. Akinyele, J.A., Pagano, M.W., Green, M.D., Lehmann, C.U., Peterson, Z.N. and Rubin, A.D., (2011). Securing electronic medical records using attribute-based encryption on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Security and privacy in smartphones and mobile devices (pp. 75-86).
12. Dip Bharatbhai Patel. (2025). Leveraging BI for Competitive Advantage: Case Studies from Tech Giants. Frontiers in Emerging Engineering & Technologies, 2(04), 15–21. Retrieved from https://irjernet.com/index.php/feet/article/view/166
13. Ash, J.S., Berg, M. and Coiera, E., (2004). Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(2), pp.104-112. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1471
14. Aycock, J., (2006). Computer viruses and malware (Vol. 22). Springer Science & Business Media.
15. 15. Bates, D.W., Saria, S., Ohno-Machado, L., Shah, A. and Escobar, G., (2014). Big data in health care: using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients. Health affairs, 33(7), pp.1123-1131. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0041.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. Marvion L. Trevik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
