Compare Scenarios

Migration Step 1

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Distributed Job Queue Platform: triggered by 'Background jobs competing with user-facing API requests for '. Multi-Tenant SaaS Platform: triggered by 'Adding a second paying customer; first audit or security rev'.

Migration Step 2

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Distributed Job Queue Platform: triggered by 'High-priority transactional jobs (e.g., payment processing, '. Multi-Tenant SaaS Platform: triggered by 'Database read load growing disproportionately with tenant co'.

Migration Step 3

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Distributed Job Queue Platform: triggered by 'Multi-step jobs (e.g., ingest file → validate → transform → '. Multi-Tenant SaaS Platform: triggered by 'Enterprise customer requesting dedicated infrastructure in c'.

Worker idle rate > 20% despite queue depth > 10k pending jobs; PostgreSQL pg_locks showing wait events on job table index; worker job claim p99 latency > 50ms (claim should be sub-10ms with correct indexing); CPU on PostgreSQL elevated from index scan overhead on job claim queries

Tier 1: Job Claim Lock Contention: Missing or misconfigured partial index on the job claim query; high worker concurrency driving SELECT FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED contention on a narrow hot page. Recommended evolution: Add a partial index on (priority DESC, created_at ASC) WHERE status = 'pending' AND run_at <= NOW(): the WHERE clause reduces the index to only claimable jobs, dramatically reducing index scan range; if contention persists, implement a job dispatch service (single dispatcher process) that batches claim queries and distributes job IDs to workers via an in-memory channel, removing per-worker database claims; tune FILLFACTOR on the job table to 70% to reduce hot page contention on SKIP LOCKED .

High-priority job queue depth growing despite workers available; low-priority batch jobs showing high throughput while transactional job latency (time from enqueue to execution start) p95 > 30s; worker pool metrics showing workers claiming jobs uniformly across priority levels rather than draining the high- priority queue first

Tier 2: Priority Inversion Under Load: Single worker pool consuming from all priority queues with equal weight; no priority-weighted polling implementation. Recommended evolution: Separate worker pools per priority tier (e.g., dedicated transactional workers for high-priority jobs, shared workers for low-priority batch); or implement priority-weighted polling in a unified worker pool (poll high-priority queue N times before polling low-priority queue once, where N is the priority weight ratio); add high-priority job execution latency as a first-class SLA metric with alerting threshold separate from batch job latency .

PgBouncer pool wait queue > 0 during peak hours; application errors reporting "connection pool exhausted" or pool timeout; pool utilization > 90%

Tier 1: Connection Pool Exhaustion: Aggregate tenant connection demand exceeding PgBouncer pool_size. Recommended evolution: Implement per-tenant connection quotas at the application layer before hitting the pool; increase pool_size incrementally; identify top-N connection consumers by tenant and implement connection reuse within tenant request handlers .

pg_stat_activity shows one tenant's queries dominating query runtime; other tenants reporting p99 latency regression while their own query counts are stable; PostgreSQL shared_buffers cache eviction rate increasing

Tier 2: Noisy Tenant I/O Saturation: Single large tenant displacing other tenants' working sets from shared buffer cache. Recommended evolution: Implement pg_cgroups or connection-level resource groups if available; consider database-per-tenant for the top N largest tenants while keeping the shared schema for smaller tenants (hybrid isolation model) .