Improving Performance with Proper DB Connection Tuning

“App started breaking under the first production load test, even though the structure was correct.” Sometimes it’s not just about having a perfect application structure but about proper configuration tuning. That’s why I’m sharing another comparison, the earlier run without tuning (present on my profile) and the optimized version after tuning. At ~300 concurrent users, latency behavior degraded sharply, P99 reached ~2.7s and max spikes went up to ~7s, even though average response time still looked normal. The issue wasn’t the API structure or queries; it was how DB connections were being handled under concurrency. Pooling wasn’t properly enforced, so requests started queuing instead of executing in parallel. After fixing proper pool acquisition and ensuring each request correctly borrows/releases a connection, performance stabilized under the same load. Same system. Different behavior under pressure. #fastapi #python #backenddevelopment #postgresql

  • graphical user interface

So in previous comment you tested which fits you needs better - FastAPI or Nodejs. You found that Nodejs is faster. Then you got slower solution (fastAPI) and deployed it on production (?) and now you make another post about FastAPI optimizations after you saw it’s slow in production? Jokes aside, I glade my comment help you to generate another post using LLM and to add details about db pool :) next time ask it to check the contradiction with previous posts, also add all comments from previous posts to LLM context, this way it will give you the best results 😁 also I recommend other people read my posts better as I don’t post LLM slop, but only real-world cases

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore content categories