Scaling PostgresML to 1 Million Requests per Second

Addressing horizontal scalability concerns, we've benchmarked PostgresML and ended up with an incredible 1 million requests per second using commodity hardware.
By Lev Kokotov

Scaling PostgresML to 1 Million Requests per Second


Lev Kokotov

November 7, 2022

The question "Does it Scale?" has become somewhat of a meme in software engineering. There is a good reason for it though, because most businesses plan for success. If your app, online store, or SaaS becomes popular, you want to be sure that the system powering it can serve all your new customers.

At PostgresML, we are very concerned with scale. Our engineering background took us through scaling PostgreSQL to 100 TB+, so we're certain that it scales, but could we scale machine learning alongside it?

In this post, we'll discuss how we horizontally scale PostgresML to achieve more than 1 million XGBoost predictions per second on commodity hardware.

If you missed our previous post and are wondering why someone would combine machine learning and Postgres, take a look at our PostgresML vs. Python benchmark.

Architecture Overview

If you're familiar with how one runs PostgreSQL at scale, you can skip straight to the results.

Part of our thesis, and the reason why we chose Postgres as our host for machine learning, is that scaling machine learning inference is very similar to scaling read queries in a typical database cluster.

Inference speed varies based on the model complexity (e.g. n_estimators for XGBoost) and the size of the dataset (how many features the model uses), which is analogous to query complexity and table size in the database world and, as we'll demonstrate further on, scaling the latter is mostly a solved problem.

System Architecture

Component Description
Clients Regular Postgres clients
ELB Elastic Network Load Balancer
PgCat A Postgres pooler with built-in load balancing, failover, and sharding
Replica Regular Postgres replicas
Primary Regular Postgres primary

Our architecture has four components that may need to scale up or down based on load:

  1. Clients
  2. Load balancer
  3. PgCat pooler
  4. Postgres replicas

We intentionally don't discuss scaling the primary in this post, because sharding, which is the most effective way to do so, is a fascinating subject that deserves its own series of posts. Spoiler alert: we sharded Postgres without any problems.


Clients are regular Postgres connections coming from web apps, job queues, or pretty much anywhere that needs data. They can be long-living or ephemeral and they typically grow in number as the application scales.

Most modern deployments use containers which are added as load on the app increases, and removed as the load decreases. This is called dynamic horizontal scaling, and it's an effective way to adapt to changing traffic patterns experienced by most businesses.

Load Balancer

The load balancer is a way to spread traffic across horizontally scalable components, by routing new connections to targets in a round robin (or random) fashion. It's typically a very large box (or a fast router), but even those need to be scaled if traffic suddenly increases. Since we're running our system on AWS, this is already taken care of, for a reasonably small fee, by using an Elastic Load Balancer.


If you've used Postgres in the past, you know that it can't handle many concurrent connections. For large deployments, it's necessary to run something we call a pooler. A pooler routes thousands of clients to only a few dozen server connections by time-sharing when a client can use a server. Because most queries are very quick, this is a very effective way to run Postgres at scale.

There are many poolers available presently, the most notable being PgBouncer, which has been around for a very long time, and is trusted by many large organizations. Unfortunately, it hasn't evolved much with the growing needs of highly available Postgres deployments, so we wrote our own which added important functionality we needed:

  • Load balancing of read queries
  • Failover in case a read replica is broken
  • Sharding (this feature is still being developed)

In this benchmark, we used its load balancing feature to evenly distribute XGBoost predictions across our Postgres replicas.

Postgres Replicas

Scaling Postgres reads is pretty straight forward. If more read queries are coming in, we add a replica to serve the increased load. If the load is decreasing, we remove a replica to save money. The data is replicated from the primary, so all replicas are identical, and all of them can serve any query, or in our case, an XGBoost prediction. PgCat can dynamically add and remove replicas from its config without disconnecting clients, so we can add and remove replicas as needed, without downtime.

Parallelizing XGBoost

Scaling XGBoost predictions is a little bit more interesting. XGBoost cannot serve predictions concurrently because of internal data structure locks. This is common to many other machine learning algorithms as well, because making predictions can temporarily modify internal components of the model.

PostgresML bypasses that limitation because of how Postgres itself handles concurrency:

PostgresML concurrency

PostgreSQL uses the fork/multiprocessing architecture to serve multiple clients concurrently: each new client connection becomes an independent OS process. During connection startup, PostgresML loads all models inside the process' memory space. This means that each connection has its own copy of the XGBoost model and PostgresML ends up serving multiple XGBoost predictions at the same time without any lock contention.


We ran over a 100 different benchmarks, by changing the number of clients, poolers, replicas, and XGBoost predictions we requested. The benchmarks were meant to test the limits of each configuration, and what remediations were needed in each scenario. Our raw data is available below.

One of the tests we ran used 1,000 clients, which were connected to 1, 2, and 5 replicas. The results were exactly what we expected.

Linear Scaling

Both latency and throughput, the standard measurements of system performance, scale mostly linearly with the number of replicas. Linear scaling is the north star of all horizontally scalable systems, and most are not able to achieve it because of increasing complexity that comes with synchronization.

Our architecture shares nothing and requires no synchronization. The replicas don't talk to each other and the poolers don't either. Every component has the knowledge it needs (through configuration) to do its job, and they do it well.

The most impressive result is serving close to a million predictions with an average latency of less than 1ms. You might notice though that 950160.7 isn't quite one million, and that's true. We couldn't reach one million with 1000 clients, so we increased to 2000 and got our magic number: 1,021,692.7 req/sec, with an average latency of 1.7ms.

Batching Predictions

Batching is a proven method to optimize performance. If you need to get several data points, batch the requests into one query, and it will run faster than making individual requests.

We should precede this result by stating that PostgresML does not yet have a batch prediction API as such. Our pgml.predict() function can predict multiple points, but we haven't implemented a query pattern to pass multiple rows to that function at the same time. Once we do, based on our tests, we should see a substantial increase in batch prediction performance.

Regardless of that limitation, we still managed to get better results by batching queries together since Postgres needed to do less query parsing and searching, and we saved on network round trip time as well.

If batching did not work at all, we would see a linear increase in latency and a linear decrease in throughput. That did not happen; instead, we got a 1.5x improvement by batching 5 predictions together, and a 1.2x improvement by batching 20. A modest success, but a success nonetheless.

Graceful Degradation and Queuing

All systems, at some point in their lifetime, will come under more load than they were designed for; what happens then is an important feature (or bug) of their design. Horizontal scaling is never immediate: it takes a bit of time to spin up additional hardware to handle the load. It can take a second, or a minute, depending on availability, but in both cases, existing resources need to serve traffic the best way they can.

We were hoping to test PostgresML to its breaking point, but we couldn't quite get there. As the load (number of clients) increased beyond provisioned capacity, the only thing we saw was a gradual increase in latency. Throughput remained roughly the same. This gradual latency increase was caused by simple queuing: the replicas couldn't serve requests concurrently, so the requests had to patiently wait in the poolers.

"What's taking so long over there!?"

Among many others, this is a very important feature of any proxy: it's a FIFO queue (first in, first out). If the system is underutilized, queue size is 0 and all requests are served as quickly as physically possible. If the system is overutilized, the queue size increases, holds as the number of requests stabilizes, and decreases back to 0 as the system is scaled up to accommodate new traffic.

Queueing overall is not desirable, but it's a feature, not a bug. While autoscaling spins up an additional replica, the app continues to work, although a few milliseconds slower, which is a good trade off for not overspending on hardware.

As the demand on PostgresML increases, the system gracefully handles the load. If the number of replicas stays the same, latency slowly increases, all the while remaining well below acceptable ranges. Throughput holds as well, as increasing number of clients evenly split available resources.

If we increase the number of replicas, latency decreases and throughput increases, as the number of clients increases in parallel. We get the best result with 5 replicas, but this number is variable and can be changed as needs for latency compete with cost.

What's Next

Horizontal scaling and high availability are fascinating topics in software engineering. Needing to serve 1 million predictions per second is rare, but having the ability to do that, and more if desired, is an important aspect for any new system.

The next challenge for us is to scale writes horizontally. In the database world, this means sharding the database into multiple separate machines using a hashing function, and automatically routing both reads and writes to the right shards. There are many possible solutions on the market for this already, e.g. Citus and Foreign Data Wrappers, but none are as horizontally scalable as we like, although we will incorporate them into our architecture until we build the one we really want.

For that purpose, we're building our own open source Postgres proxy which we discussed earlier in the article. As we progress further in our journey, we'll be adding more features and performance improvements.

By combining PgCat with PostgresML, we are aiming to build the next generation of machine learning infrastructure that can power anything from tiny startups to unicorns and massive enterprises, without the data ever leaving our favorite database.



This time, we used an XGBoost model with 100 trees:

content_copy link edit
SELECT * FROM pgml.train(
task => 'regression',
relation_name => 'flights_mat_3',
y_column_name => 'depdelayminutes',
algorithm => 'xgboost',
hyperparams => '{"n_estimators": 100 }',
runtime => 'rust'

and fetched our predictions the usual way:

content_copy link edit
SELECT pgml.predict(
) AS prediction
FROM flights_mat_3 LIMIT :limit;

where :limit is the batch size of 1, 5, and 20.


The model is roughly the same as the one we used in our previous post, with just one extra feature added, which improved R2 a little bit.



The client was a c5n.4xlarge box on EC2. We chose the c5n class to have the 100 GBit NIC, since we wanted it to saturate our network as much as possible. Thousands of clients were simulated using pgbench.

PgCat Pooler

PgCat, written in asynchronous Rust, was running on c5.xlarge machines (4 vCPUs, 8GB RAM) with 4 Tokio workers. We used between 1 and 35 machines, and scaled them in increments of 5-20 at a time.

The pooler did a decent amount of work around parsing queries, making sure they are read-only SELECTs, and routing them, at random, to replicas. If any replica was down for any reason, it would route around it to remaining machines.

Postgres Replicas

Postgres replicas were running on c5.9xlarge machines with 36 vCPUs and 72 GB of RAM. The hot dataset fits entirely in memory. The servers were intentionally saturated to maximum capacity before scaling up to test queuing and graceful degradation of performance.

Raw Results

Raw latency data is available here and raw throughput data is available here.

Call to Early Adopters

PostgresML and PgCat are free and open source. If your organization can benefit from simplified and fast machine learning, get in touch! We can help deploy PostgresML internally, and collaborate on new and existing features. Join our Discord or email us!

Many thanks and ❤️ to all those who are supporting this endeavor. We’d love to hear feedback from the broader ML and Engineering community about applications and other real world scenarios to help prioritize our work. You can show your support by starring us on our Github.