Note: I wrote this in 2014, and it languished in my drafts folder; I still agree with the premise though, so finally published it, with some copy edits/clean ups.
Update August 2018: Jimmy Bogart has a good post/series on this: life beyond distributed transactions. I like his high-level articulation that “communication data and application data must live in the same transactional store” to achieve safe cross-store processes; that is essentially what I’m saying here, albeit via the concrete approach of boolean database processing flags. Jimmy’s articule uses an inbox/outbox notion, which I really like, but personally took as a conceptual mental model and not a strict implementation approach per se (although it could be).
Recently I’ve picked up on a few assertions that using your database as a queue (DaaQ) is an anti-pattern.
However, I feel that “anti-pattern” is a mislabeling of the approach, because the “anti-pattern” term insinuates that it is always a bad idea and should be avoided or else you risk disaster when things inevitably go wrong.
This doesn’t match my experience. I’ve used a DaaQ on several projects now, and, so far, have not been burned by the approach. Quite the opposite, I think it provides several nice properties that can make it a good choice (for the right situation, of course).
To evaluate whether it’s a good choice for your project or not, I think there a few things to think about: scale, response time, atomicity, idempotence, availability, and implementation.
First, as a clarification, what I mean by DaaQ is using stateful flags in your database to drive offline-ish business processes, typically via polling (yes, it’s that low-tech).
- The web UI creates a new
Employeeentity, and sets the
- The background/batch/cron process queries
SELECT id FROM employee WHERE needsProcessed = true
- The background process then syncs/processes/whatever the business logic is
- When finished,
Employee.needsProcessedis set back to
Note that this is exceedingly low-tech, e.g. it’s not using
wal2json or Postgres’s built-in queues, or Kinesis or Kafka, etc.
But that’s kind of the point: it’s so low-tech that, if it fits your situation, it can work really well.
First, the biggest factor in “is DaaQ best-practice or anti-pattern?” is scale.
If you’re dealing with high-load, 100s/1000s of queue operations/second, you shouldn’t use this approach. A DaaQ will typically not handle that much contention (individual row writes would be fine, but in theory the
needsProcessed would be a global secondary index that could get expensive at scale).
Besides operations/second, I think number of queue workers is a good thing to think about.
Depending on your scenario, ideally you can KISS and use just one worker (e.g. one machine running
SELECT ... FROM table WHERE needsProcessed = true). I think this is a sweet spot for DaaQ and obviously will make things a lot simpler.
That being said, I’m confident DaaQ can scale to multiple workers (e.g. by marking and committing items as claimed before processing), but it will take some more effort. The key is to have as little state in the workers as possible, and just keep leveraging the database as the authoritative state, e.g. to find/lock/timeout queue items.
I’m admittedly making this up, but I think if you can estimate having less than 10-20 workers polling your DaaQ, that you should be fine. It seems unlikely that a database should get upset about 10 connections contending over some rows. Honestly, I’ve never had to use more than 1 worker–if anyone has experience with more, I’d be interested in hearing how it went.
(Note that, if you need it, packages like queue classic have sophisticated approaches to worker coordination so can likely support more workers than a simple, hand-rolled approach.)
In my experience, DaaQ usually involves polling on the part of workers.
The polling lag may be anywhere from seconds to minutes to hours, e.g. it’s whatever you configure as appropriate for your scenario. But it will generally never be milliseconds.
If you’re like Amazon and want to have the order confirmation email in my inbox I swear before I’ve even clicked “Confirm Order”, then using a traditional, push-based queue is a good choice.
(However, the already-mentioned-as-spiffy queue classic uses a PostgresSQL-specific channel feature to do wake ups of sleeping workers and supposedly achieve pretty quick pick up times. Cool stuff!)
Okay, the last few points have been about why not to choose DaaQ–this one is the biggest reason why you should choose DaaQ, atomicity on enqueue (this section) and dequeue (next section).
On enqueue, you have two things happening:
- Save these business entities, and
- Enqueue these business entities for processing
With DaaQ, by definition these two operations live in the same primary database, which means you can perform both within a single transaction.
Without this, you can run into two failure modes on enqueue:
Write to database fails, but the enqueue already succeeded, so you enqueued as inherently-invalid event.
Your queue processor will have to handle this case, e.g. a valid-looking “process employee #123” event, but that employee row is not actually there.
Write to database succeeded, but the enqueue fails, and so you drop the business logic.
Both of these are bad, but with DaaQ you get enqueue atomicity for free.
This is a huge simplifying factor vs. dealing with separate “my data lives in database X” and “my queue lives in server/system Y”.
(Note that in the late~90s/mid-2000s, it was popular to “solve” this by having two-phase commit between your database and message queue, courtesy of your friendly J2EE vendor, but these were invariably fiascos, in my opinion, because transaction managers can fail too, and at that point you’re hand-reconciling databases anyway.)
Similar to enqueue, whenever you talk about any queue, DaaQ or otherwise, idempotence on dequeue is always going to be a part of the discussion.
This is because there are two similar operations to handle on dequeue:
- Save the updated, post-processed business entities
- Dequeue them as successfully processed
We can run into the same two failure scenarios:
- Save to the database succeeds, but the dequeue fails, so we double-process the event.
- Save to the database fails, but the dequeue succeeds, and we’ve dropped the event.
These failure modes both vanish with DaaQ: if both side-effects live within your primary database, you’ll again have one transaction that atomically commits both.
Note that I am assuming our processing logic writes back to the primary database. This is admittedly probably a boundary case, and it’s more likely that our background process will talk to a 3rd-party system. Which is fine, but means we’ll have to handle idempotence via the usual mechanisms.
When I want to enqueue work (e.g. the user is saving “employee #123” in the UI, make sure to “process it” later, whatever “process it” means for the given application), I want the strongest guarantee that the queue will be available.
For me, that is usually the point of a queue–the “process it” work might fail (e.g. say we have to sync this employee row to a 3rd-party vendor), so I’d rather not perform the work right now on the web UI’s request thread, and instead do it in a manner that can be recovered/retried when services are inevitably unavailable.
So, I want enqueues to just work, which means the queue should always be available. If it’s not, I’m back at square one, somehow having to ensure enqueues aren’t dropped when the queue is unavailable. This means somehow persistently writing to local disk, having enqueues recovered on machine failure, etc., and a lot of extra work.
(Admittedly, an alternative if your external queue is unavailable is to fail the entire request, especially before any database commits. Then you don’t need to worry about dropped enqueues because it will be the user’s/caller’s responsibility to recognize the entire request failed and try again later. If you can make and consistently enforce this choice, then a separate queue that involves a network hop would be okay.)
Instead, I find the simplest, strongest guarantee of availability is to just use your primary application database–it should always be there.
And, granted, sometimes it won’t be, but at that point your entire application is down, so the point is moot. No dropped enqueues because there are no requests at all.
Furthermore, I think this approach generalizes to other resources besides the queue. Whenever possible, I prefer for my web applications to talk to as few external resources as possible–that includes email servers, queue servers, 3rd party SOAP services, etc.
For example, sending emails on the request thread: this will work 99% of the time, but when it doesn’t, the user sees an error. And if instead you send email from a background thread, you risk it being lost if the machine goes down. Or you could just shove the email into the database and let a polling worker send it.
Besides the simplification (much easier to test the web UI if it just talks to the db; less services to fake out), you’re essentially building in durability to your system.
Email service flake out? No problem, the polling worker will try again in an hour. A 3rd party SOAP API suffer a severe data center outage? No problem, the polling worker will try again in an hour.
Which is much better than the answer being “um…I’ll dig through the logs looking for stack traces and manually resend what got dropped”.
Okay, so I’ve admittedly drifted from using specifically DaaQ in your application to using a persistent queue in general. But, again, it is nice if your queue is not yet-another-service, as then you’re ensured your application stays consistent.
In my experience, I think there are two common ways to implement DaaQ:
Boolean flags with a single worker.
If you have an
employeetable, add a flag
needs_work_done, and have a worker polling every five minutes for
SELECT * FROM employee WHERE needs_work_done = true, and then for each result, do the work + change
needs_work_done = false, ideally in a single transaction.
(This assumes the work’s side-effects are also in your primary database–if they are else where, you’ll have to think of error conditions and idempotence, as with any queue.)
This is my favorite DaaQ approach just because it’s the simplest. I think it’s very hard for things to go wrong with this model. It’s easy for the application logic to “enqueue” work (just flip the flag), and easy for the polling workers, or you as an admin, see what work is remaining by querying on the
needs_work_done = true.
There are two major cons of this approach:
It doesn’t lend itself to more than 1 worker, which usually entails coordination flags like an
in_progress_sincetime stamp, and
It doesn’t support retries after longer than whatever your polling period is. E.g. poll every 5 minutes, but if an item fails, wait an hour before trying that specific one again. This usually entails another
queuetable with a new row for each work item, with either one or many workers polling from
queue.in_progress_since = now(), and then deleting the
queuerow when done.
This is used by off-the-shelf DaaQ libraries like queue_classic because it means the queue can use its own few, generic tables in your schema and not have to integrate with anything else. It is also amenable to coordinating multiple workers that can generically perform any number of tasks.
It is a little trickier to implement, but I think still doable, even rolling your own. In keeping with the DaaQ pattern, I think it’s important to still leverage your database as the authoritative state as much as possible.
The window between a worker doing “get some work”, “do the work”, and “mark work done” should be as tiny as possible to ensure the database doesn’t suddenly go away. But, of course, it still might, so you’ll still need to think of idempotence.
Another thing to consider is implementing your own DaaQ logic/polling, or using something off the shelf.
My general opinion is that if you need potentially lots of workers, using an existing solution is likely a good bet. However, for lighter workloads, there can be an advantage to rolling your own, as you can adapt it to your needs.
For example, one queue I implemented had the feature that if a user had multiple enqueued items, and one failed, then all of the user’s work would be put on hold (because items later in the queue depended on the user’s items earlier in the queue completing successfully). But items for other users would keep being processed.
So, yeah, tl;dr, use common sense, if database-as-a-queue isn’t going to work for your system, then don’t use it. I’m sure there are many scenarios where it really is not a good fit,
But if your situation does allow it, then I think it’s an easy win for a simpler, more robust system.