Compare Scenarios

Migration Step 1

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Analytics Data Platform: triggered by 'OLTP query p99 degrading during analytics reporting windows;'. E-Commerce Order Platform: triggered by 'Payment provider timeout causing full checkout rollback and '.

Migration Step 2

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Analytics Data Platform: triggered by 'Sub-minute analytics freshness SLA required; ETL scheduling '. E-Commerce Order Platform: triggered by 'Product search p99 > 1s; faceted navigation (category + pric'.

Migration Step 3

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Analytics Data Platform: triggered by 'Dashboard query p95 > 5s on frequently accessed aggregation '. E-Commerce Order Platform: triggered by 'Email/push notification provider timeouts causing checkout l'.

Kafka consumer group lag (bytes or offsets) growing for the analytics topic group; ClickHouse dashboard timestamps falling behind wall clock by > 60s; ClickHouse insert throughput < Kafka produce rate

Tier 1: Consumer Lag and Freshness Degradation: ClickHouse insert throughput insufficient for Kafka produce rate. Recommended evolution: Tune ClickHouse insert buffer size and async_insert settings; increase consumer parallelism up to the Kafka partition count; batch inserts into ClickHouse using the Buffer engine or materialized views with merge trees .

One Kafka partition offset growing significantly faster than others; one consumer instance CPU/network saturated while others are idle

Tier 2: Hot Partition and Skewed Consumer Load: Skewed partition key distribution: high-cardinality entity routing the same high-volume key to one partition. Recommended evolution: Add a secondary hash suffix to the partition key to distribute load; increase topic partition count (note: keyed ordering breaks for existing messages); re-evaluate partition key selection based on actual cardinality measurements .

PostgreSQL pg_locks showing high RowExclusiveLock contention on inventory_items for specific sku_ids; checkout p99 > 2s for contended SKUs; deadlock errors appearing in application logs during sale events; effective checkout throughput for hot SKUs well below per-request checkout latency would predict

Tier 1: Flash Sale Inventory Contention: Concurrent saga checkout attempts competing for the same inventory row via row-level locking. Recommended evolution: Introduce a per-SKU checkout serialization queue at the application layer : all concurrent checkout requests for the same SKU are queued and processed serially, converting lock contention into queue latency. Alternatively, use PostgreSQL advisory locks with non-blocking trylock: requests that cannot acquire the lock immediately return a "sold out" response rather than queuing. For very high flash sale volumes, pre-allocate inventory slots (reserve N slots per sale event, each slot is a row with one reservation) to spread lock contention across N rows instead of one. .

Checkout p99 tracking payment provider p99 almost linearly; connection pool utilization on the payment service rising during payment provider slowdowns; circuit breaker trip events appearing in payment service metrics; saga timeout events correlated with payment provider latency spikes

Tier 2: Payment Provider Latency Amplifying Checkout Latency: Checkout saga holding a database connection and an inventory reservation open for the duration of the payment provider call: payment latency directly amplifies connection pool pressure. Recommended evolution: Decouple the payment step from the synchronous checkout saga: reserve inventory and create the order record synchronously, then process payment asynchronously. The customer receives an "order confirmed, payment processing" state immediately; the payment step runs as a separate saga step triggered by an event. This reduces the synchronous checkout latency to the inventory reservation time, not the payment provider round-trip time. .