DBRavenArchitecture Decision Reports

Start Review →

Architecture Structural Diff

Compare two scenarios node-by-node. See exactly which components, failure modes, and connections are shared, removed (−), or added (+) when switching from the left scenario to the right.

Select Scenarios to Diff

left, removals (−)

AI Retrieval-Augmented Generation Platform

AI / RAG

API Gateway Platform

Multi-Tenant SaaS

Analytics Data Platform

Analytics

Audit and Compliance Platform

Financial Ledger

Content Management Platform

Read-Heavy

Developer Tools Platform

Multi-Tenant SaaS

Distributed Job Queue Platform

Write-Heavy

E-Commerce Order Platform

Marketplace

Event-Driven Analytics Pipeline

Event-Driven

Financial Ledger Platform

Financial Ledger

Gaming Backend Platform

Realtime Collab

Geospatial Tracking Platform

Realtime Collab

Healthcare Records Platform

Financial Ledger

IoT Telemetry Ingestion Platform

Write-Heavy

ML Feature Serving Platform

AI / RAG

Multi-Tenant SaaS Platform

Multi-Tenant SaaS

Notification Delivery Platform

Event-Driven

Observability Platform

Analytics

Read-Heavy SaaS API

Realtime Collaborative Editor

Realtime Collab

Search-Heavy Content Platform

Search-Heavy

Social Feed Platform

Event-Driven

Streaming Media Platform

Event-Driven

Two-Sided Marketplace Platform

Marketplace

Write-Heavy Transactional Platform

Write-Heavy

right, removals (−)

AI Retrieval-Augmented Generation Platform

AI / RAG

API Gateway Platform

Multi-Tenant SaaS

Analytics Data Platform

Analytics

Audit and Compliance Platform

Financial Ledger

Content Management Platform

Read-Heavy

Developer Tools Platform

Multi-Tenant SaaS

Distributed Job Queue Platform

Write-Heavy

E-Commerce Order Platform

Marketplace

Event-Driven Analytics Pipeline

Event-Driven

Financial Ledger Platform

Financial Ledger

Gaming Backend Platform

Realtime Collab

Geospatial Tracking Platform

Realtime Collab

Healthcare Records Platform

Financial Ledger

IoT Telemetry Ingestion Platform

Write-Heavy

ML Feature Serving Platform

AI / RAG

Multi-Tenant SaaS Platform

Multi-Tenant SaaS

Notification Delivery Platform

Event-Driven

Observability Platform

Read-Heavy SaaS API

Read-Heavy

Realtime Collaborative Editor

Realtime Collab

Search-Heavy Content Platform

Search-Heavy

Social Feed Platform

Event-Driven

Streaming Media Platform

Event-Driven

Two-Sided Marketplace Platform

Marketplace

Write-Heavy Transactional Platform

Write-Heavy

Observability Platform→Read-Heavy SaaS API

−26 removed+8 added1 unchanged

Components

21

Observability Platform

7

Read-Heavy SaaS API

1 shared−20+6

Failure Modes

6

Observability Platform

2

Read-Heavy SaaS API

0 shared−6+2

Connections

0

Observability Platform

6

Read-Heavy SaaS API

0 shared+6

Components

1 shared−20 left only+6 right only

=

Rediscache

acceleration

−

Analytics Heavy (OLAP)workload

workload

−

Time-Series Metricsworkload

workload

−

Event Streamingworkload

workload

−

Write-Heavy Transactionalworkload

workload

−

ClickHouseprimary datastore

data management

−

Apache Kafkaevent stream

async processing

−

Elasticsearchsupporting component

application logic

−

TimescaleDBsupporting component

application logic

−

Time Series Rolluparchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Change Data Capture via WALarchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Competing Consumersarchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Materialized Viewarchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Backpressurearchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Rate Limitingarchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Disk I/O Saturationoperational risk

operational risk

−

Hot Partitionoperational risk

operational risk

−

WAL Saturationoperational risk

operational risk

−

Slow Consumeroperational risk

operational risk

−

Fanout Amplificationoperational risk

operational risk

−

Write Amplification Cascadeoperational risk

operational risk

+

Read-Heavy API Backendworkload

workload

+

PostgreSQLprimary datastore

data management

+

Connection Poolingarchitecture pattern

interface or access

+

Read Replicaarchitecture pattern

application logic

+

Connection Pool Exhaustionoperational risk

operational risk

+

Replication Lag Cascadeoperational risk

operational risk

Failure Modes

−6 left only+2 right only

−

Disk I/O Saturation1 nodes affected

highhigh

−

Hot Partition0 nodes affected

highhigh

−

WAL Saturation1 nodes affected

highhigh

−

Slow Consumer0 nodes affected

moderate

−

Fanout Amplification0 nodes affected

moderate

−

Write Amplification Cascade0 nodes affected

highhigh

+

Connection Pool Exhaustion1 nodes affected

highhigh

+

Replication Lag Cascade1 nodes affected

moderate

Connections

+6 right only

+

Redis caching absorbs repeated read requests at the edge, reducing database load and latency for high read-to-write ratio workloads by orders of magnitude.

mitigates

+

Read-heavy APIs benefit directly from Redis as a caching tier that absorbs repeated identical reads and provides sub-millisecond response times for hot data, reducing both latency and database load.

benefits from

+

Read-heavy APIs generate large numbers of short-lived database connections. Connection pooling reduces per-request connection overhead and allows the database to serve far more concurrent requests than its max_connections limit.

benefits from

+

PostgreSQL's built-in streaming replication provides the replication substrate that makes the read replica pattern operational. Physical and logical replication are both supported, enabling read scaling without data modification.

supports

+

The read replica pattern is structurally vulnerable to replication lag cascade because its value proposition: serving reads from replicas: depends on replica data being sufficiently current. Any condition that delays WAL replay degrades or invalidates the replica's usefulness.

vulnerable torisk path

+

A connection pool bounds the total database connections an application can open, preventing connection storms during traffic spikes and protecting the database server from exceeding its connection limit.

mitigates

Six-Dimension Assessment

Structural comparison across complexity, risk, scalability, maturity, observability, and generator readiness.

high complexity, 21 nodes, 0 edges, 6 risks, 2 simulation seeds

Complexity

Read-Heavy →

moderate complexity, 7 nodes, 6 edges, 2 risks, 2 simulation seeds

6 risks (top: high), 4 high/critical, 0 confirmed by simulation

Operational Risk

Read-Heavy →

2 risks (top: high), 2 high/critical, 2 confirmed by simulation

4 scaling thresholds, 3 migration paths, 4 advisor scaling signals

Scalability

Read-Heavy →

4 scaling thresholds, 2 migration paths, 9 advisor scaling signals

Advisor assessment: Advanced; recommended team: Experienced Backend Team; 14 operational requirements

Operational Maturity

Read-Heavy →

Advisor assessment: Intermediate; recommended team: Experienced Backend Team; 7 operational requirements

4 watched metrics, 5 observability recommendations, 2 simulation seeds

Observability

Read-Heavy →

8 watched metrics, 3 observability recommendations, 2 simulation seeds

generator relevance documented; topology generation relevance noted; simulation relevance noted; 2 seeds with generator notes

Generator Readiness

depends

generator relevance documented; topology generation relevance noted; simulation relevance noted; 2 seeds with generator notes

Full comparison + decision path →Topology: Observability Platform →Topology: Read-Heavy SaaS API →