Compare Scenarios

Migration Step 1

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Geospatial Tracking Platform: triggered by 'PostGIS proximity query p99 > 100ms under concurrent fleet t'. Distributed Job Queue Platform: triggered by 'Background jobs competing with user-facing API requests for '.

Migration Step 2

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Geospatial Tracking Platform: triggered by 'Location update API p99 > 200ms correlated with geofence cou'. Distributed Job Queue Platform: triggered by 'High-priority transactional jobs (e.g., payment processing, '.

Migration Step 3

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Geospatial Tracking Platform: triggered by 'PostgreSQL location_history table exceeding 100GB with query'. Distributed Job Queue Platform: triggered by 'Multi-step jobs (e.g., ingest file → validate → transform → '.

Redis used_memory > 75% of maxmemory; Redis evictions appearing in INFO stats; GEOSEARCH returning stale or missing entity positions; Redis OOM errors in application logs during fleet expansion events; proximity query latency increasing above 10ms baseline

Tier 1: Redis Geospatial Memory Pressure: Redis memory exhausted by unbounded geospatial entity growth without entity expiry or cleanup. Recommended evolution: Implement entity-scoped Redis key TTL tied to the last received update timestamp. Entities that have not sent a position update in > 5 minutes are expired from Redis automatically (Redis EXPIRE on the ZSET entry using a per-entity auxiliary key pattern, since ZSET members do not support per-member TTL natively). Alternatively, introduce a background reconciliation job that removes entities from the live position surface after an inactivity threshold. Shard the geospatial index across multiple Redis instances by geographic region using consistent hashing on the region key. .

TimescaleDB write p99 > 50ms; WAL volume > 200MB/minute sustained; disk I/O utilization > 80% on TimescaleDB data volume; chunk creation log entries during fleet expansion events correlated with write latency spikes; TimescaleDB worker queue depth growing during ingestion bursts

Tier 2: TimescaleDB Write Throughput Ceiling: TimescaleDB hypertable chunk write throughput saturated by high-frequency location update volume; chunk creation DDL causing write stalls during expansion. Recommended evolution: Tune TimescaleDB chunk_time_interval to match the ingestion rate: smaller chunks (1-hour intervals instead of 1-day) reduce per-chunk write volume but increase chunk creation frequency. Use timescaledb-parallel-copy for bulk historical ingestion. Move the TimescaleDB WAL to a dedicated NVMe volume. Introduce write batching at the application layer: buffer 500ms of position updates per entity and write as a single multi-row INSERT, reducing the per-update overhead from N single-row INSERTs to N/batch_size batch INSERTs. .

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 .