mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-08 00:54:38 +02:00
e591e75b8c
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server runs a recovery sweep every 30 seconds. The sweep makes
sure assigned issues do not stall.
> - The sweep reads the latest heartbeat run for each candidate issue.
It filters `heartbeat_runs` on `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`. No
index covers this expression.
> - Each lookup scans ~26k rows and detoasts each row's JSONB context
(~645 ms per query, measured with EXPLAIN ANALYZE). With ~460 candidate
issues, one sweep schedules ~500 seconds of database work every 30
seconds.
> - The database saturates. Users see the whole server as slow.
> - This pull request adds expression indexes so these lookups become
index scans.
> - The benefit is that the recovery sweep drops from ~500 seconds of
database work per tick to milliseconds, and the server becomes
responsive again.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The server became slow for all users. `pg_stat_activity` sampling showed
the same two recovery-sweep queries active continuously (15/15 samples).
Each `getLatestIssueRun` call filtered `heartbeat_runs` on the unindexed
expression `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`, scanned ~26k rows, and
detoasted a 2.1 GB TOAST region. `heartbeat_runs` accumulated 10.8
billion sequential tuples read. `hasActiveExecutionPath` also scanned
`agent_wakeup_requests` (1.8M rows) on the unindexed expression `payload
->> 'issueId'`.
**Expected behavior**
Per-issue run lookups in the recovery sweep complete in milliseconds.
The sweep finishes well inside its 30-second interval. Background
maintenance does not degrade interactive latency.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a board with several hundred issues in `todo` / `in_progress` /
`in_review` and a large `heartbeat_runs` table with big
`context_snapshot` payloads.
2. Let the heartbeat scheduler run its 30-second recovery sweep.
3. Observe `pg_stat_activity`: the per-issue `heartbeat_runs` lookups
run continuously; `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` shows a filter on `context_snapshot
->> 'issueId'` removing tens of thousands of rows per call.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master (814cb336)
## What Changed
- Add migration `0209_heartbeat_context_snapshot_indexes.sql` with three
expression indexes:
- `heartbeat_runs (company_id, (context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'),
created_at DESC)`
- `heartbeat_runs (company_id, (context_snapshot ->> 'taskId'),
created_at DESC)`
- `agent_wakeup_requests (company_id, (payload ->> 'issueId'))` — with a
`large-create-index-not-concurrently` safety pragma and justification,
following the migration 0206 precedent.
- Mirror the three indexes in the drizzle schema files
(`heartbeat_runs.ts`, `agent_wakeup_requests.ts`).
- Add `heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`. The test
boots a fresh embedded Postgres, applies the full migration chain,
asserts the indexes exist, and asserts with `EXPLAIN` that the planner
selects them for the exact hot query shapes.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec tsx
src/check-migration-numbering.ts` passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec tsx src/check-migration-safety.ts`
passes.
- `npx vitest run
src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` passes (fresh
embedded Postgres, full chain 0000→0209, planner uses all three
indexes).
- `npx vitest run src/check-migration-safety.test.ts` passes (25/25).
- `tsc --noEmit` clean for `packages/db`.
## Risks
- The index builds run inside the transactional migration (no
`CONCURRENTLY`). The `heartbeat_runs` build must read its 2.1 GB TOAST
once; expect the migration step to add roughly 1–3 minutes to one deploy
while writes to the two tables wait. This is a one-time cost at startup,
before the server accepts traffic.
- Three new indexes add small write overhead to two hot-write tables.
The read savings are several orders of magnitude larger.
- No query or API behavior changes; the planner simply gains a better
access path.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking, with
tool use (shell, Postgres EXPLAIN/ANALYZE against the live instance for
measurement, vitest for verification).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>