Outgrowing Postgres: Handling growing data volumes

In our previous article, we discussed the early warning signs that indicate you might be outgrowing Postgres. As your business grows, so does your data. Today, we're focusing on one of the most common scaling challenges: managing and querying extremely large datasets in Postgres.

The Impact of Large-Scale Data on Postgres Performance

As your tables grow from gigabytes to terabytes, you'll start noticing several performance impacts:

Slower Queries: Large tables mean more data to scan, index, or join. Queries that once took milliseconds might now take seconds, minutes, or even hours.

Increased I/O Operations: With more data to process, your database will perform more I/O operations, potentially leading to I/O bottlenecks.

Index Inefficiency: As tables grow, indexes become larger and less efficient. They take up more disk space and require more time to update.

Longer Maintenance Operations: Routine maintenance tasks like VACUUM and ANALYZE take longer to complete, potentially impacting your application's performance.

Increased Memory Usage: Postgres tries to keep frequently accessed data in memory. As your data grows, you may need more RAM to maintain performance.

Strategies for Managing and Querying Big Datasets in Postgres

While Postgres wasn't originally designed for big data, there are several strategies you can employ to manage and query large datasets effectively. We’ve listed these from most straightforward and routine to most complex and time-consuming to implement and maintain.

The Basics

Regular Maintenance

Schedule regular VACUUM and ANALYZE operations to keep your database healthy. Consider using autovacuum for automated maintenance.

Archiving and Pruning

Implement a data retention policy. Archive old data that's not frequently accessed and prune it from your main tables.

Proper Indexing

Carefully designed indexes can dramatically improve query performance. However, be cautious not to over-index, as this can slow down write operations.

It’s important to note that while indexes can dramatically improve read performance, they also increase write overhead and storage requirements. Over-indexing can lead to slower INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE operations.

Query Optimization

Use EXPLAIN ANALYZE to understand query execution plans and optimize accordingly. Sometimes, rewriting a query can lead to significant performance improvements.

Advanced Techniques

The following strategies can be very effective for managing terabyte-scale data in Postgres however they require a lot more planning and careful design, in addition to ongoing management.

Table Partitioning

Partitioning allows you to split a large table into smaller, more manageable chunks. This can significantly improve query performance and make maintenance easier when your tables are very large (larger than can fit in memory).

Postgres provides a pretty straightforward syntax for partitioning large tables. The below example partitions the orders table by month, which can be a good strategy assuming that you tend to write only the most recent orders and do not often query too far back in time for your operational workloads.

Partitioning can significantly enhance query performance by allowing the database to scan only relevant partitions, a process that should be transparent to your application. This approach can also boost insert performance, as new data typically goes into the most recent partition. 

However, partitioning is not without its tradeoffs. Your database structure inevitably becomes more intricate, potentially requiring query rewrites to fully leverage partition pruning. As your data grows, so does the number of partitions, increasing management complexity and operational overhead. 

Query performance, while generally improved, can be variable. Some queries may actually slow down due to the additional work required by the query analyzer to create optimal execution plans. To mitigate this, it's necessary to use the partitioning key in your WHERE and JOIN clauses, facilitating effective partition pruning. Inserts and updates come with their own considerations. 

Inserts may face some overhead as the database routes writes to the appropriate partition and updates both local and global indexes. Updates that cause data to move between partitions (cross-partition updates) can be particularly costly and should be avoided when possible. 

You'll also need to strategize about partition management. The choice between creating new partitions on-the-fly with an insert trigger or creating them in advance depends on your data write speed, partition granularity, and acceptable latency for write, update, and delete operations. 

Implementing partitioning requires careful consideration of these trade-offs. You’ll want to ensure your team is prepared to manage a more complex database structure and can adapt your application and operational practices accordingly. While the benefits of partitioning can be substantial, they come with the responsibility of more intricate database management. Your specific use case, query patterns, and operational capabilities should guide your decision to implement partitioning and how to approach it.

Sub-Partitioning

If you're comfortable managing the complexities of partitioning and find yourself needing even more fine-grained control, sub-partitioning is a way to take partitioning even further. This technique allows you to further divide an already partitioned table, and importantly, you're not constrained to using the same partitioning scheme for these sub-partitions. Sub-partitioning is particularly valuable for massive datasets that benefit from segmentation across multiple dimensions, or when your queries frequently filter on several columns.

To illustrate this concept, let's consider a large-scale e-commerce platform operating globally. In this scenario, you might choose to partition your orders table by month using range partitioning, and then further sub-partition each month’s data by country code using list partitioning. This approach allows for efficient querying of orders based on both time and geographic location.

Sub-partitioning allows for more efficient querying when filtering on both date and country code, but it significantly increases the complexity of your partition management and query planning. Before implementing sub-partitioning, consider whether the performance gains justify the added complexity in your specific use case. You'll need to ensure your database administration processes are robust enough to handle this more intricate partitioning scheme.

Cascading/Hierarchical Materialized Views

Materialized views can be a powerful tool for improving query performance, especially for complex, frequently-run analytical queries and in particular, aggregations. One strategy is to create a hierarchy of materialized views with different time granularities, which are sometimes referred to as cascading or hierarchical materialized views.

In the below example, we create a daily sales view which we then leverage to generate a monthly sales summary view and from that, a yearly sales summary view:

This approach allows for faster refreshes of the higher-level views (monthly and yearly) as they can build upon the lower-level views. It also provides flexibility in query performance, allowing you to choose the appropriate granularity for each query. As with many optimization techniques, cascading materialized views come with trade-offs. While they can dramatically reduce query latency and scan sizes, you sacrifice both the freshness of your data and the total amount of storage required. You'll need to establish processes to refresh these materialized views regularly, balancing data freshness and data consistency against system load.

The complexity of managing multiple interconnected views can't be overstated - you're essentially creating a pipeline of data transformations that must be carefully orchestrated. At terabyte scale, these problems only compound, especially with refreshes being much more time-consuming and resource-intensive. Before implementing this strategy, ensure your team is prepared to manage the refresh schedules and troubleshoot any issues that arise in this more complex setup.

Vertical Partitioning

Vertical partitioning involves splitting a table with many columns into multiple tables. This technique is not as common as the previous ones but can be particularly useful for tables with large text or binary columns that are not frequently accessed.

Here’s how you might vertically partition a customer_data table with large, infrequently accessed columns.

Vertical partitioning can significantly improve query performance for frequently accessed columns and make data management more efficient. By separating rarely used columns (like large_profile_data), we can keep frequently accessed data in memory more easily, potentially speeding up common queries.

However, vertical partitioning isn't without its challenges. It increases the complexity of your schema and can complicate queries that need data from multiple tables, potentially impacting performance due to additional JOINs. You'll need to carefully consider your query patterns and data access needs when deciding how to partition your tables vertically.

Moreover, maintaining data consistency across these partitioned tables becomes more challenging. You'll need to ensure that related data across tables remains consistent, which may require additional application logic or database constraints. Operations that modify data across multiple partitions need to be carefully managed to maintain data integrity.

Before implementing vertical partitioning, consider whether the performance gains and improved data management justify the added complexity in your specific use case. Ensure your team is prepared to handle the increased complexity in schema design, query writing, and data consistency management.

Scaling Beyond a Single Server

Even after implementing advanced strategies like partitioning, materialized views, and careful query optimization, you may eventually encounter scenarios where a single Postgres instance struggles to manage your data effectively. Before considering extreme measures like sharding, which introduces significant complexity, it's imperative to recognize the signs that you're approaching the limits of what a single Postgres instance can handle efficiently: 

Query Performance Degradation: Despite optimization efforts, if queries on your largest tables consistently take minutes or hours to complete, you're likely pushing the boundaries of Postgres's capabilities on a single instance. 

Maintenance Impact on Availability: When routine operations like VACUUM and ANALYZE begin to significantly impact your application's availability, it's a clear indicator that your database is struggling to keep up with the data volume. 

Index Inefficiency: If your indexes are consuming as much or more space than your actual data, and index updates are noticeably slowing down write operations, you're approaching a critical limit in terms of data management efficiency. 

Vertical Scaling Limitations: When you've maximized your hardware capabilities (IOPS, CPU, RAM, and storage) and are still encountering performance issues, you're nearing the ceiling of what a single server can handle. 

Optimization Efforts Falling Behind: If your data is growing at a rate that outpaces your ability to optimize queries and database structure, it's a sign that you're fighting an uphill battle with your current setup. 

Replication Lag: For setups using replication, if you're experiencing significant and growing lag between your primary and replica databases, it might indicate that your write volume is becoming too high for a single primary to handle effectively. 

Increasing I/O Wait Times: If you notice a consistent increase in I/O wait times, especially during peak usage periods, it suggests that your storage system is struggling to keep up with the data volume and query load. 

Before making the leap to sharding or other distributed database solutions, ensure you've exhausted all possibilities for optimization on a single instance. This includes revisiting your indexing strategy, query patterns, data retention policies, and potentially exploring specialized Postgres extensions designed for large-scale data management. Only when these approaches no longer yield significant improvements should you consider more drastic measures like sharding. 

Remember, the complexity introduced by sharding can be substantial, affecting not just your database but also your application logic, deployment processes, and overall system architecture. Therefore, it's a step that should be taken only when absolutely necessary and after thorough evaluation of its implications on your specific use case.

Sharding

Sharding involves distributing your data across multiple Postgres instances. This can be done at the application level or using extensions like Citus. Here's an example of how you might implement application-level sharding for our orders table with Python:

Sharding can significantly increase your database's capacity to handle large volumes of data and high write throughput. By distributing data across multiple servers, you can overcome the limitations of a single machine's resources. This approach allows your database to scale horizontally, potentially handling hundreds of terabytes of data across dozens of servers.

However, sharding introduces significant complexity to your system. It requires careful planning of your sharding strategy, which often involves making trade-offs based on your most common query patterns. You'll need to implement logic at the application level to route queries to the appropriate shard, which adds complexity to your codebase.

A major challenge with sharding is handling queries that span multiple shards. These cross-shard queries can be significantly slower and more complex to implement than queries on a single server. You may need to denormalize data or duplicate some data across shards to avoid these costly cross-shard operations.

Maintaining data consistency across shards is another significant challenge. Transactions that affect multiple shards are much more complex to manage, and you may need to implement two-phase commit protocols or other distributed transaction mechanisms.

Schema changes also become more challenging with sharding, as you need to coordinate changes across all shards. This can make database migrations more time-consuming and risky.

Before implementing sharding, it's absolutely essential to exhaust all other optimization techniques and ensure that you truly need this level of scalability. The added complexity of sharding can significantly increase your operational overhead and the skills required from your development and operations teams. 

Recognizing When Data Size Becomes Unmanageable

When you reach the point of considering sharding, it might be time to consider other options that might be better suited for handling workloads of this scale without the vastly increased operational overhead and complexity:

1. Distributed SQL databases for specific use-cases
2. NoSQL databases for specific use cases
3. OLAP solutions for analytics workloads

Wrapping up

Managing terabyte-scale data in Postgres is challenging but not impossible. By implementing the strategies we've discussed and closely monitoring your database's performance, you can push Postgres to its limits. However, it's critical to recognize when you're approaching those limits and start planning for the next phase of your data architecture.

Each scaling technique we've discussed comes with its own set of trade-offs. Partitioning and sharding can greatly improve performance but add complexity to your schema and queries. Materialized views can speed up complex queries but require careful management of refresh cycles. Indexing strategies need to balance improved read performance against write overhead. Sharding can scale your data outward when it grows beyond the capabilities of a single machine but brings with it a major amount of operational complexity and risk.

The key is to continually monitor your database's performance, understand your workload characteristics, and be prepared to evolve your data architecture as your needs grow. Remember, there's no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to scaling databases to handle terabytes of data.

In our next article, we’ll explore how to manage high concurrency in Postgres and discuss strategies for optimizing your database for a growing user base. We'll build upon the concepts we've covered in this article and our previous one on identifying Postgres growing pains. Stay tuned as we continue our journey towards building a scalable, high-performance data infrastructure.

Need to move your analytics off Postgres?

Tinybird is data infrastructure for software teams. You can query your Postgres tables with SQL and publish queries as dynamic, scalable REST API Endpoints to power in-product reporting, real-time dashboards, and more.

You can try Tinybird for free with no time limit. Sign up here