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'. ML Feature Serving Platform: triggered by 'Feature computation logic duplicated across 3+ model serving'.

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'. ML Feature Serving Platform: triggered by 'Regulatory or reproducibility requirement to re-run model pr'.

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'. ML Feature Serving Platform: triggered by 'Semantic similarity search recall insufficient from BM25 ful'.

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. .

Feature store p99 rising from < 5ms to > 50ms immediately following a model deployment or pod scaling event; Cassandra or PostgreSQL feature store read QPS spiking 10–100x simultaneously with serving fleet restart; feature store connection pool exhaustion visible in application logs during the cold start window; Redis cache hit rate dropping to < 10% for the first 60 seconds after deployment

Tier 1: Cache Cold Start Latency Spike: Simultaneous cache cold start across all serving pods after deployment, converting sequential feature requests into a thundering herd against the backing feature store. Recommended evolution: Implement pre-warming: before a new model version receives traffic, a warm-up job runs inference requests for a representative sample of entity IDs, populating the Redis cache before the pod enters the serving fleet. Use probabilistic early cache refresh (fetch from backing store before TTL expiry when remaining TTL < 20% under high request rate) to prevent simultaneous TTL expiry on hot features. Stagger deployment rollout: deploy 10% of pods, wait for cache warm, then proceed to the next 10%. .

Model performance metrics (precision, recall, AUC) degrading without a corresponding input distribution shift; ClickHouse drift dashboard showing feature value distributions served online diverging from training population distributions; explicit skew audit (comparing offline training feature values against replayed online feature values for the same entity at the same timestamp) showing systematic differences in specific features

Tier 2: Training-Serving Skew Detection: Feature computation logic divergence between the offline training pipeline and the online serving pipeline: a feature transformation applied in training is not applied identically in serving. Recommended evolution: Enforce a single feature computation function registered per feature in a shared feature registry, executed by both the online pipeline and the offline training pipeline. The two paths must use the same code, not independently maintained implementations. Implement a skew monitoring job that computes a random sample of features using both paths and alerts on distribution divergence above a threshold. .