Relational databases are at the heart of countless applications around the world, from high-traffic e-commerce websites to enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and financial services. Concurrency management—where multiple database transactions operate on the same data simultaneously—is critical to getting good performance and avoiding problems like deadlocks or data inconsistencies.When multiple transactions need to modify the same rows, ensuring data consistency can become tricky. A single wrong approach to locking can lead to suboptimal performance or even bring your application to a standstill as numerous transactions block one another. One tool in PostgreSQL’s arsenal to handle concurrency is SELECT FOR UPDATE. It allows you to lock specific rows before updating them, preventing other transactions from modifying those rows until your transaction completes.In this blog, we will dive deep into SELECT FOR UPDATE in PostgreSQL. We will explore how it helps in reducing contention, avoiding deadlocks, and ultimately boosting performance when dealing with highly concurrent applications.

I have always been a fan of RANGE partitioning using a date/time value in PostgreSQL. This isn't always possible, however, and I recently came across a scenario where a table had grown large enough that it had to be partitioned, and the only reasonable key to use was a UUID styled identifier.The goal of this post is to highlight when and why hashing your data across partitions in PostgreSQL might be a better approach.Range vs. Hash Partitioning in PostgreSQLRange Partitioning (A Quick Recap)Range partitioning in PostgreSQL uses boundary values that define slices of the data, often by date or numeric ranges. If you have a transactions table, you might create monthly partitions based on a transaction_date column. This is intuitive for time-series data because each partition holds rows from a specific date range.Advantages of Range Partitioning:Easy pruning for date-based queries. Straightforward approach to archiving old data: drop an entire partition for a past month, rather than issuing a massive DELETE. Pairs nicely with time-based ingestion pipelines, where every day or month gets its own partition. But as convenient as that is, there are cases where range partitioning runs into problems.Why Range Partitioning Can Fall ShortData Skew: If a huge portion of data lands in a single time interval—say, because of a traffic spike in the current month—that monthly partition might end up significantly larger than the others. Complex Backfills: Not everyone ingests data in an orderly, daily manner. Sometimes you need to re-ingest or correct data that spans multiple periods. Merging or splitting range partitions can get cumbersome. Non-Date Dimensions: Some tables aren’t naturally tied to a sequential numeric or date dimension. If your queries center on user IDs or device IDs, dividing by date might not solve your performance issues.

Autovacuum is one of PostgreSQL's most powerful features, designed to maintain database health and optimize performance by automating routine maintenance tasks. However, improper configuration can lead to performance bottlenecks, excessive costs due to resource inefficiency, or uncontrolled table bloat. This blog explores what autovacuum is, its role in performance optimization and cost reduction, and best practices for configuring its parameters.What is Autovacuum? Autovacuum is a background process in PostgreSQL responsible for maintaining table health by performing two critical tasks:1. Vacuuming - Removes dead tuples (rows that have been updated or deleted but are no longer visible). - Frees up space for reuse to prevent table bloat and reduce storage costs.2. Analyzing - Updates table statistics used by the query planner to optimize execution plans, improving query performance.Without autovacuum, dead tuples can accumulate, leading to: - Table Bloat: Increased disk usage drives up storage costs and slows query performance. - Transaction ID Wraparound: A situation that forces the system to go into ‘safe mode’, blocking non-superuser transactions to protect data integrity. This can render the database unusable if not addressed, causing downtime and increased operational costs.By automating these tasks, autovacuum ensures consistent database performance and minimizes unnecessary costs.

Cloud costs can quickly spiral out of control if resources are not optimized. One of the most significant contributors to these costs is CPU core allocation, which forms the basis of the instance size with every major cloud provider. Many organizations over-provision cores for their PostgreSQL databases, paying for unused capacity, or under-provision them, leading to poor performance and missed SLAs.This blog will explore strategies to allocate CPU cores effectively for PostgreSQL databases, ensuring optimal performance while keeping cloud expenses in check.The Cost-Performance Tradeoff in the CloudCloud providers charge based on resource usage, and CPU cores are among the most expensive components. Allocating too many cores leads to wasted costs, while too few can cause performance bottlenecks.PostgreSQL databases are particularly sensitive to CPU allocation, as different workloads—OLTP (Online Transaction Processing) vs. OLAP (Online Analytical Processing)—place varying demands on processing power. Finding the right balance is essential to achieving both cost-efficiency and performance reliability.How CPU Core Allocation Impacts PostgreSQLPostgreSQL can leverage multi-core systems effectively, but how you allocate cores depends on your workload:- OLTP Workloads: High concurrency workloads benefit from multiple cores, allowing PostgreSQL to process many small transactions simultaneously. - OLAP Workloads: Analytical queries often rely on parallel execution, utilizing a few powerful cores to handle complex operations like aggregations and joins.Additionally, PostgreSQL supports parallel query execution, which can distribute certain operations across multiple cores. However, parallelism primarily benefits large analytical queries and can sometimes degrade performance for small or simple queries due to overhead. It is critical to assess your workload before over-allocating resources.