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

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

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

Analytics

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

Two-Sided Marketplace Platform

Marketplace

Write-Heavy Transactional Platform

Write-Heavy

Streaming Media Platform→Write-Heavy Transactional Platform

−24 removed+12 added3 unchanged

Components

21

Streaming Media Platform

11

Write-Heavy Transactional Platform

3 shared−18+8

Failure Modes

6

Streaming Media Platform

4

Write-Heavy Transactional Platform

0 shared−6+4

Connections

0

Streaming Media Platform

5

Write-Heavy Transactional Platform

0 shared+5

Components

3 shared−18 left only+8 right only

=

Apache Kafkaevent stream

async processing

=

PostgreSQLprimary datastore

data management

=

Change Data Capture via WALarchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Event Streamingworkload

workload

−

Batch ETL Pipelineworkload

workload

−

Read-Heavy API Backendworkload

workload

−

Time-Series Metricsworkload

workload

−

Apache Cassandraprimary datastore

data management

−

Rediscache

acceleration

−

MinIOsupporting component

application logic

−

Competing Consumersarchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Cache-Asidearchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Event Sourcingarchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Backpressurearchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Rate Limitingarchitecture pattern

application logic

−

Queue Backlog Accumulationoperational risk

operational risk

−

Thundering Herd (Cache Stampede)operational risk

operational risk

−

Disk I/O Saturationoperational risk

operational risk

−

Slow Consumeroperational risk

operational risk

−

Hot Partitionoperational risk

operational risk

−

Cascading Failureoperational risk

operational risk

+

Write-Heavy Transactionalworkload

workload

+

High-Throughput OLTPworkload

workload

+

Transactional Outbox Patternarchitecture pattern

application logic

+

Connection Poolingarchitecture pattern

interface or access

+

Write Amplification Cascadeoperational risk

operational risk

+

WAL Saturationoperational risk

operational risk

+

Lock Contentionoperational risk

operational risk

+

Checkpoint Amplificationoperational risk

operational risk

Failure Modes

−6 left only+4 right only

−

Queue Backlog Accumulation2 nodes affected

highhigh

−

Thundering Herd (Cache Stampede)1 nodes affected

highhigh

−

Disk I/O Saturation1 nodes affected

highhigh

−

Slow Consumer0 nodes affected

moderate

−

Hot Partition0 nodes affected

highhigh

−

Cascading Failure0 nodes affected

highhigh

+

Write Amplification Cascade0 nodes affected

highhigh

+

WAL Saturation1 nodes affected

highhigh

+

Lock Contention1 nodes affected

highhigh

+

Checkpoint Amplification1 nodes affected

moderate

Connections

+5 right only

+

Write-heavy transactional workloads that emit downstream events (order placed, payment captured) benefit from the outbox pattern to ensure events are published exactly when the database transaction commits: never before, never after.

benefits from

+

Kafka is the standard downstream target for WAL-based CDC pipelines: Debezium captures database WAL records and publishes them to Kafka topics, which downstream consumers process to maintain derived data stores, caches, and event-driven services.

supports

+

Write-heavy transactional workloads trigger frequent PostgreSQL checkpoints that flush large numbers of dirty pages to disk simultaneously, causing I/O spikes that interrupt query execution and increase write amplification beyond the WAL baseline.

vulnerable torisk path

+

Write-heavy transactional workloads amplify lock contention: many concurrent writers contend for row-level locks on the same records (e.g., shared account balances, inventory counts), causing transactions to queue, latency to spike, and throughput to plateau well below hardware limits.

vulnerable torisk path

+

Write-heavy transactional workloads generate high WAL volume that can saturate WAL writer throughput, fill the WAL buffer, and: in the extreme: cause write transactions to block waiting for WAL to be flushed to disk or consumed by replicas.

vulnerable torisk path

Six-Dimension Assessment

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

high complexity, 21 nodes, 0 edges, 6 risks, 3 simulation seeds

Complexity

Write-Heavy →

high complexity, 11 nodes, 5 edges, 4 risks, 3 simulation seeds

6 risks (top: high), 5 high/critical, 0 confirmed by simulation

Operational Risk

Write-Heavy →

4 risks (top: high), 3 high/critical, 0 confirmed by simulation

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

Scalability

← Streaming

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

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

Operational Maturity

tie

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

8 watched metrics, 7 observability recommendations, 3 simulation seeds

Observability

Write-Heavy →

6 watched metrics, 4 observability recommendations, 3 simulation seeds

generator relevance documented; topology generation relevance noted; simulation relevance noted; 3 seeds with generator notes

Generator Readiness

depends

generator relevance documented; topology generation relevance noted; simulation relevance noted; 3 seeds with generator notes

Full comparison + decision path →Topology: Streaming Media Platform →Topology: Write-Heavy Transactional Platform →