Qualification memo

The obvious index was not the answer.

The first candidate changed the PostgreSQL plan but did not materially improve p95 latency. The workflow did not convert a plausible change into a success story. It preserved the negative result and continued testing alternatives.

ScenarioSlow reporting query without an index
EnvironmentLocal PostgreSQL Docker lab with synthetic data
AnalysisDeterministic analyzer and report generation
QualificationSame-session and repeated randomized checks
SafetyHuman-reviewed draft artifacts; no production authority

Candidate decisions

CandidateObservationDecisionScope

Index

Execution plan changed; p95 did not materially improve.

Rejected

Local lab

Monthly reporting read model

Major local latency improvement with refresh and stale-data recovery checks.

Accepted

Local demonstration only

Production rollout

Real workload, operability, cost, ownership, and change-window evidence absent.

Not approved

Out of scope

What the repository demonstrates

01

Reproducible evidence

Dockerized PostgreSQL, synthetic schema and data, captured plans, repeated measurements, and deterministic reports.

02

Candidate qualification

A remediation matrix with concurrency, write, refresh, randomized repetition, and stale-data recovery considerations.

03

Safe assistance

Draft diagnoses and change artifacts remain bounded by deterministic inputs and explicit human review.

The strongest claim is a bounded claim.

The project supports accept_for_local_demo_only. It does not claim production readiness. A production decision would require representative workload evidence, capacity and refresh analysis, operational ownership, failure testing, security review, rollback planning, and a controlled change window.