System Design (LLD)Cache Patterns

Cache Patterns

LevelIntermediate

Duration75 mins

TopicCache Patterns

1 / 4

Cache-aside Pattern (Lazy-loading Cache)

The Default Caching Strategy of Production Systems

When engineers say "we added caching," they're most often referring to the cache-aside pattern—the most widely adopted caching strategy in production systems worldwide. From Reddit and Twitter to Netflix and Uber, cache-aside forms the backbone of how applications interact with their caches.

Unlike other caching patterns that integrate the cache as an automatic intermediary, cache-aside puts the application in full control. The application explicitly checks the cache, explicitly fetches from the database on misses, and explicitly populates the cache with fresh data. This explicit control is both its greatest strength and its source of complexity.

What You Will Learn

By the end of this page, you will understand the cache-aside pattern at a deep level—its mechanics, implementation patterns, subtle failure modes, consistency guarantees, and precisely when it outshines other caching strategies. You'll be equipped to implement cache-aside correctly and reason about its behavior under various conditions.

Foundational Understanding: What Is Cache-Aside?

The cache-aside pattern—also known as lazy-loading or demand-loading cache—is a caching strategy where the application code assumes responsibility for maintaining the cache. The cache sits "aside" the data store rather than in front of it, and the application directly orchestrates interactions between both.

The defining characteristic: Neither the cache nor the database knows about each other. The application serves as the sole coordinator, deciding when to read from cache, when to fall back to the database, and when to update the cache.

This stands in contrast to patterns like read-through and write-through, where the cache itself intercepts requests and manages the underlying data store transparently. Cache-aside requires explicit application logic—but provides unparalleled control.

Core Characteristics of Cache-Aside

•Application-Managed — The application is responsible for all cache operations; no automatic cache management occurs.
•Lazy Population — Data is loaded into cache only when first requested, not proactively.
•Database as Source of Truth — The database is always authoritative; the cache is a performance optimization layer.
•Decoupled Components — Cache and database are independent systems that don't communicate directly.
•Explicit Invalidation — The application must explicitly remove or update stale cache entries.

Why "Aside" in Cache-Aside?

The name comes from the architectural position of the cache—it sits "aside" the main data path rather than "in front of" or "behind" it. The application reaches out to the cache as a side operation, falling back to the primary data store when necessary. This is in contrast to read-through caches, which sit directly in the request path.

The Read Path: Step-by-Step Flow

Understanding cache-aside requires walking through its exact read path. Every read operation follows a consistent decision tree that determines whether data comes from cache or database.

The Cache-Aside Read Algorithm:

cache-aside-read.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
interface User {
  id: string;
  email: string;
  name: string;
  preferences: UserPreferences;
}
 
class UserService {
  private cache: CacheClient;
  private database: DatabaseClient;
  private readonly CACHE_TTL_SECONDS = 3600; // 1 hour
 
  constructor(cache: CacheClient, database: DatabaseClient) {
    this.cache = cache;
    this.database = database;
  }
 
  async getUser(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Step 1: Check the cache
    const cachedUser = await this.cache.get<User>(cacheKey);
 
    // Step 2: Cache hit - return immediately
    if (cachedUser !== null) {
      this.metrics.increment('cache.hit', { entity: 'user' });
      return cachedUser;
    }
 
    // Step 3: Cache miss - query the database
    this.metrics.increment('cache.miss', { entity: 'user' });
    const user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user === null) {
      // User doesn't exist - consider caching the null result
      // to prevent repeated database lookups (negative caching)
      return null;
    }
 
    // Step 4: Populate the cache for future requests
    await this.cache.set(cacheKey, user, this.CACHE_TTL_SECONDS);
 
    // Step 5: Return to caller
    return user;
  }
}

Critical observations from this implementation:

The application owns the logic — There's no magic. Every decision is explicit in code.
Cache key design matters — The key user:{userId} must be unique and consistent. Poor key design leads to collisions or cache fragmentation.
TTL is a crucial parameter — The CACHE_TTL_SECONDS determines how long data remains cached before automatic expiration. This is our first line of defense against staleness.
Metrics are essential — Tracking cache hits vs. misses reveals whether caching is actually helping. A 10% hit rate indicates a problem; 95%+ is excellent.
Null handling requires thought — What happens when a user doesn't exist? Should we cache that fact, or let every non-existent ID hit the database?

The Write Path: Invalidation vs. Update-Through

Reads in cache-aside are straightforward—the real complexity lies in handling writes. When data changes in the database, the cache can become stale. Cache-aside offers two primary strategies for handling writes:

Strategy 1: Cache Invalidation (delete on write)

When data is updated in the database, delete the corresponding cache entry. The next read will trigger a cache miss and reload fresh data.

Strategy 2: Cache Update (update on write)

When data is updated in the database, also update the cache entry with the new value. Subsequent reads hit the cache with already-fresh data.

Both strategies have valid use cases, but invalidation is generally preferred in cache-aside due to its simplicity and consistency properties.

Cache Invalidation

•Delete cache entry on write
•Next read reloads from database
•Simple and predictable
•Naturally handles complex updates
•May cause temporary increased database load
•Preferred for most cache-aside implementations

Cache Update

•Update cache entry on write
•Next read hits cache immediately
•More complex—must maintain consistency
•Can fail if update logic differs from read logic
•Eliminates post-write cache miss penalty
•Useful when reads immediately follow writes

cache-aside-write-invalidation.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
class UserService {
  /**
   * Strategy 1: Cache Invalidation (Recommended)
   * 
   * Order of operations is critical:
   * 1. Update the database first (source of truth)
   * 2. Then delete from cache
   * 
   * This ordering ensures we never have stale data in cache
   * while database has newer data. At worst, a read between
   * step 1 and 2 serves old cached data (acceptable).
   */
  async updateUser(userId: string, updates: Partial<User>): Promise<User> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Step 1: Update the database (source of truth)
    const updatedUser = await this.database.query<User>(
      'UPDATE users SET name = COALESCE($2, name), email = COALESCE($3, email) WHERE id = $1 RETURNING *',
      [userId, updates.name, updates.email]
    );
 
    // Step 2: Invalidate the cache entry
    // Even if this fails, TTL will eventually expire the stale entry
    await this.cache.delete(cacheKey);
 
    // Return the fresh data from database
    return updatedUser;
  }
 
  /**
   * Strategy 2: Cache Update (Alternative)
   * 
   * Update both database and cache. Useful when:
   * - Reads immediately follow writes (user sees their own update)
   * - Cache reconstruction is expensive
   * - You can guarantee the update produces identical data to a fresh read
   */
  async updateUserWithCacheUpdate(userId: string, updates: Partial<User>): Promise<User> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Step 1: Update the database
    const updatedUser = await this.database.query<User>(
      'UPDATE users SET name = COALESCE($2, name), email = COALESCE($3, email) WHERE id = $1 RETURNING *',
      [userId, updates.name, updates.email]
    );
 
    // Step 2: Update the cache with the same data
    // Critical: The cached value must exactly match what a fresh read would return
    await this.cache.set(cacheKey, updatedUser, this.CACHE_TTL_SECONDS);
 
    return updatedUser;
  }
}

Order of Operations Matters

Always update the database before modifying the cache. If you delete from cache first, then fail to update the database, subsequent reads will reload old data from the database into cache—making it appear the update succeeded when it didn't. Database-first ensures correctness at the cost of a brief staleness window.

Race Conditions and Consistency Challenges

Cache-aside's explicit control comes with explicit responsibilities—particularly around race conditions. In concurrent systems, multiple operations can interleave in ways that leave the cache inconsistent with the database.

The Classic Read-Write Race:

Consider two concurrent operations: a read (R) and a write (W) for the same key.

Timeline:
R1: Cache miss, query database → gets value A
    W1: Update database from A to B
    W2: Delete cache entry (succeeds)
R2: Write A to cache (stale!)

The read operation retrieves value A from the database, but before it can write to cache, a write operation updates the database to B and invalidates the cache. Then the read writes A to cache—and now the cache holds stale data.

This is not theoretical—it happens in production, especially under high load where operations take variable time.

Common Cache-Aside Race Conditions
Scenario	Interleaving	Result	Mitigation
Read-Write Race	Read fetches from DB, Write updates DB and invalidates, Read populates cache	Cache holds stale data	Short TTL, read-before-populate check
Write-Write Race	Two concurrent updates, both invalidate cache	Usually harmless—cache correctly empty	Database handles actual conflict
Read-Read Stampede	Cache expires, 1000 concurrent requests all miss, all query database	Database overwhelmed	Request coalescing, early refresh
Double Population	Two reads miss simultaneously, both query DB, both populate	Wasteful but correct—same data written twice	Distributed locks (often overkill)

cache-aside-race-mitigation.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
class RobustUserService {
  /**
   * Mitigation: Check cache before populating
   * 
   * After fetching from database, check if cache was populated
   * by another request while we were waiting. Only populate if still empty.
   * This reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the read-write race window.
   */
  async getUser(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Initial cache check
    let user = await this.cache.get<User>(cacheKey);
    if (user !== null) {
      return user;
    }
 
    // Cache miss - fetch from database
    user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user === null) {
      return null;
    }
 
    // Mitigation: Only populate if still not in cache
    // SET NX = Set if Not eXists (atomic operation)
    // This prevents overwriting a fresher value that was set while we waited
    await this.cache.setNX(cacheKey, user, this.CACHE_TTL_SECONDS);
 
    return user;
  }
 
  /**
   * Mitigation: Request coalescing for cache stampedes
   * 
   * When cache expires, only one request actually fetches from database.
   * Other concurrent requests wait for that result.
   */
  private inFlightRequests = new Map<string, Promise<User | null>>();
 
  async getUserWithCoalescing(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Check cache first
    const cached = await this.cache.get<User>(cacheKey);
    if (cached !== null) {
      return cached;
    }
 
    // Check if another request is already fetching this user
    const existingRequest = this.inFlightRequests.get(userId);
    if (existingRequest) {
      // Wait for the existing request instead of making a new one
      return existingRequest;
    }
 
    // We're the first—create the fetch promise
    const fetchPromise = this.fetchAndCache(userId, cacheKey);
    this.inFlightRequests.set(userId, fetchPromise);
 
    try {
      return await fetchPromise;
    } finally {
      // Clean up after completion
      this.inFlightRequests.delete(userId);
    }
  }
 
  private async fetchAndCache(userId: string, cacheKey: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user !== null) {
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, user, this.CACHE_TTL_SECONDS);
    }
 
    return user;
  }
}

Embrace Eventual Consistency

Cache-aside inherently provides eventual consistency, not strong consistency. Brief windows of staleness are acceptable for most applications. Rather than adding complex distributed locking, use short TTLs (5-15 minutes for most data) and accept that rare race conditions will resolve naturally when the TTL expires.

Cache Key Design: The Foundation of Effective Caching

The cache key is deceptively important. A well-designed key schema enables efficient caching, supports wildcard invalidation, and prevents collisions. A poorly designed schema leads to subtle bugs, cache pollution, and invalidation nightmares.

Key Design Principles:

Cache Key Best Practices

•Use Hierarchical Namespacing — Structure keys as {service}:{entity}:{identifier}:{variant}. This enables targeted invalidation and debugging.
•Include Version or Schema Identifiers — Prefix with v1: or similar. When your data format changes, increment the version to avoid deserializing old formats.
•Be Deterministic — The same inputs must always produce the same key. Avoid timestamps, random values, or object hashes that vary.
•Keep Keys Readable — Debugging cache issues is hard enough without cryptic keys. user:12345:profile beats u12345p.
•Consider Invalidation Patterns — If you'll need to invalidate all user data, keys like user:12345:* enable pattern-based deletion.

cache-key-factory.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
/**
 * Centralized cache key generation
 * 
 * Benefits:
 * - Consistent key format across entire application
 * - Easy to add versioning, prefixes, or namespaces
 * - Single place to audit key patterns
 * - Enables key-based invalidation strategies
 */
class CacheKeyFactory {
  private readonly namespace: string;
  private readonly version: string;
 
  constructor(namespace: string = 'app', version: string = 'v1') {
    this.namespace = namespace;
    this.version = version;
  }
 
  // Single entity by ID
  user(userId: string): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}`;
  }
 
  // Entity sub-resource
  userProfile(userId: string): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}:profile`;
  }
 
  userPreferences(userId: string): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}:preferences`;
  }
 
  // Collection or list
  userOrders(userId: string, page: number = 1): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}:orders:page:${page}`;
  }
 
  // Query-based cache (parametric)
  productSearch(query: string, filters: ProductFilters): string {
    // Normalize and hash complex query parameters
    const normalizedQuery = query.toLowerCase().trim();
    const filterHash = this.hashFilters(filters);
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:search:products:${normalizedQuery}:${filterHash}`;
  }
 
  // Pattern for wildcard invalidation
  userPattern(userId: string): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}:*`;
  }
 
  allUsersPattern(): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:*`;
  }
 
  private hashFilters(filters: ProductFilters): string {
    // Sort keys for deterministic ordering
    const sortedKeys = Object.keys(filters).sort();
    const normalized = sortedKeys.map(k => `${k}=${filters[k]}`).join('&');
    // Use a simple hash for the key—full value for debugging
    return this.simpleHash(normalized);
  }
 
  private simpleHash(str: string): string {
    // Simple hash function for key generation
    let hash = 0;
    for (let i = 0; i < str.length; i++) {
      const char = str.charCodeAt(i);
      hash = ((hash << 5) - hash) + char;
      hash = hash & hash; // Convert to 32-bit integer
    }
    return Math.abs(hash).toString(36);
  }
}
 
// Usage
const keys = new CacheKeyFactory('myapp', 'v2');
 
// Generates: myapp:v2:user:12345
const userKey = keys.user('12345');
 
// Generates: myapp:v2:user:12345:profile
const profileKey = keys.userProfile('12345');
 
// For invalidation: myapp:v2:user:12345:*
const userPattern = keys.userPattern('12345');

Avoid Common Key Mistakes

Never include mutable data like timestamps or session IDs in cache keys for entity data. The key user:12345:session:abc123 will never hit again after the session changes. Similarly, avoid including version-varying data like 'format=v2' in keys—instead, version the entire key prefix.

Negative Caching: Caching Absence

A subtle but important optimization in cache-aside is negative caching—caching the fact that something doesn't exist. Without negative caching, repeated requests for non-existent data hit the database every time.

The Problem:

Consider a user lookup for ID 99999 that doesn't exist. Without negative caching:

Request arrives → cache miss → database query → no result → return null
Next request → cache miss → database query → no result → return null
Repeat forever

Each request hits the database. For high-traffic systems, this becomes a significant load, especially if an attacker intentionally queries non-existent IDs.

negative-caching.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
interface CachedUser {
  exists: true;
  user: User;
} | {
  exists: false;
  // No user data—this is a cached negative result
}
 
class UserServiceWithNegativeCaching {
  private readonly POSITIVE_TTL = 3600;    // 1 hour for existing users
  private readonly NEGATIVE_TTL = 300;     // 5 minutes for non-existent users
 
  async getUser(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Check cache—may contain positive or negative result
    const cached = await this.cache.get<CachedUser>(cacheKey);
 
    if (cached !== null) {
      if (cached.exists) {
        return cached.user;  // Positive cache hit
      } else {
        return null;  // Negative cache hit—we know this user doesn't exist
      }
    }
 
    // Cache miss—query database
    const user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user !== null) {
      // Cache the positive result
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, { exists: true, user }, this.POSITIVE_TTL);
      return user;
    } else {
      // Cache the negative result (shorter TTL)
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, { exists: false }, this.NEGATIVE_TTL);
      return null;
    }
  }
}
 
/**
 * Alternative: Sentinel value approach
 * 
 * Instead of wrapping in {exists: true/false}, use a sentinel value
 * like a special string or empty object to represent "not found"
 */
class UserServiceSentinel {
  private readonly NOT_FOUND_SENTINEL = '__NOT_FOUND__';
  private readonly NEGATIVE_TTL = 300;
 
  async getUser(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
    const cached = await this.cache.get<User | string>(cacheKey);
 
    if (cached === this.NOT_FOUND_SENTINEL) {
      return null;  // Negative cache hit
    }
 
    if (cached !== null) {
      return cached as User;  // Positive cache hit
    }
 
    // Cache miss
    const user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user !== null) {
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, user, this.POSITIVE_TTL);
    } else {
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, this.NOT_FOUND_SENTINEL, this.NEGATIVE_TTL);
    }
 
    return user;
  }
}

Keep Negative TTL Short

Negative cache entries should expire faster than positive ones (5 minutes vs. 1 hour). Why? If a user is created shortly after a negative lookup, we don't want to wait an hour before they appear. Short negative TTLs balance protection from repeated misses against responsiveness to new data.

When Cache-Aside Excels

Cache-aside isn't universally optimal—no caching pattern is. But it's the best choice in many scenarios:

Cache-aside is ideal when:

Optimal Use Cases for Cache-Aside

•Read-heavy workloads — Applications where data is read far more often than written. Cache-aside shines when you can cache once and serve many times.
•Flexible data sources — When data comes from multiple sources (APIs, databases, computed values), you need explicit control over what gets cached.
•Tolerance for eventual consistency — Brief windows of staleness are acceptable. If you need strong consistency, consider other patterns.
•Complex cache invalidation logic — When invalidation requires business logic (e.g., 'invalidate all orders when inventory changes'), application control is essential.
•Existing systems without cache integration — Adding caching to an existing application is easier with cache-aside since it doesn't require database or cache middleware changes.
•Unpredictable access patterns — Lazy loading naturally adapts to access patterns. Frequently accessed data accumulates in cache; rarely accessed data doesn't waste space.

When to Consider Alternatives

•Write-heavy workloads — Frequent writes mean frequent invalidations, reducing cache effectiveness. Consider write-through or write-behind.
•Strong consistency requirements — If stale data is unacceptable (financial transactions, inventory counts), read-through with synchronous invalidation may be better.
•Cold start sensitivity — If initial cache misses are costly and predictable data needs to be available immediately, consider cache warming or read-through.
•Distributed cache coherency — In multi-region deployments, cache-aside's invalidation model can lead to inconsistency. Purpose-built distributed caching may be needed.

Cache-Aside Decision Matrix
Factor	Favors Cache-Aside	Favors Alternatives
Read/Write Ratio	High (90%+ reads)	Low (frequent writes)
Consistency Requirement	Eventual consistency OK	Strong consistency required
Data Source	Multiple or complex sources	Single database
Invalidation Logic	Complex, business-driven	Simple, automatic
Infrastructure	Separate cache and DB	Integrated caching layer
Cold Start Tolerance	Acceptable miss penalty	Must be pre-warmed

Summary: Mastering Cache-Aside

The cache-aside pattern is the workhorse of production caching. Its explicit, application-controlled nature provides flexibility and transparency at the cost of requiring careful implementation.

Key Takeaways:

Cache-Aside Essentials

•Application owns the coordination — The application explicitly checks cache, queries database on miss, and populates cache. No magic, full control.
•Lazy loading is the default — Data enters cache only when first requested, naturally adapting to access patterns.
•Invalidate on write, database-first — When data changes, update the database first, then invalidate cache. This ordering prevents the worst consistency issues.
•Race conditions are inherent — Cache-aside provides eventual consistency. Short TTLs and request coalescing mitigate but don't eliminate race conditions.
•Key design is foundational — Invest in a consistent, hierarchical key schema. It pays dividends in debugging and invalidation.
•Negative caching prevents abuse — Cache missing data (with short TTL) to protect the database from repeated lookups.
•Metrics drive optimization — Track hit/miss ratios, latencies, and key cardinality. Caching without metrics is flying blind.

What's Next:

In the next page, we'll explore the read-through cache pattern, where the cache itself intercepts read requests and manages the underlying data store. This shifts complexity from application code to infrastructure, offering different tradeoffs that may better suit certain architectures.

Page Complete

You now have a deep understanding of the cache-aside pattern—its mechanics, implementation strategies, consistency challenges, and optimal use cases. This foundation prepares you for the remaining cache patterns and for making informed decisions about caching strategies in production systems.

1 / 4

Loading learning content...

System Design (LLD)Cache Patterns

Cache Patterns

LevelIntermediate

Duration75 mins

TopicCache Patterns

1 / 4

Cache-aside Pattern (Lazy-loading Cache)

The Default Caching Strategy of Production Systems

What You Will Learn

Foundational Understanding: What Is Cache-Aside?

Core Characteristics of Cache-Aside

•Application-Managed — The application is responsible for all cache operations; no automatic cache management occurs.
•Lazy Population — Data is loaded into cache only when first requested, not proactively.
•Database as Source of Truth — The database is always authoritative; the cache is a performance optimization layer.
•Decoupled Components — Cache and database are independent systems that don't communicate directly.
•Explicit Invalidation — The application must explicitly remove or update stale cache entries.

Why "Aside" in Cache-Aside?

The Read Path: Step-by-Step Flow

Understanding cache-aside requires walking through its exact read path. Every read operation follows a consistent decision tree that determines whether data comes from cache or database.

The Cache-Aside Read Algorithm:

cache-aside-read.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
interface User {
  id: string;
  email: string;
  name: string;
  preferences: UserPreferences;
}
 
class UserService {
  private cache: CacheClient;
  private database: DatabaseClient;
  private readonly CACHE_TTL_SECONDS = 3600; // 1 hour
 
  constructor(cache: CacheClient, database: DatabaseClient) {
    this.cache = cache;
    this.database = database;
  }
 
  async getUser(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Step 1: Check the cache
    const cachedUser = await this.cache.get<User>(cacheKey);
 
    // Step 2: Cache hit - return immediately
    if (cachedUser !== null) {
      this.metrics.increment('cache.hit', { entity: 'user' });
      return cachedUser;
    }
 
    // Step 3: Cache miss - query the database
    this.metrics.increment('cache.miss', { entity: 'user' });
    const user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user === null) {
      // User doesn't exist - consider caching the null result
      // to prevent repeated database lookups (negative caching)
      return null;
    }
 
    // Step 4: Populate the cache for future requests
    await this.cache.set(cacheKey, user, this.CACHE_TTL_SECONDS);
 
    // Step 5: Return to caller
    return user;
  }
}

Critical observations from this implementation:

The application owns the logic — There's no magic. Every decision is explicit in code.
Cache key design matters — The key user:{userId} must be unique and consistent. Poor key design leads to collisions or cache fragmentation.
TTL is a crucial parameter — The CACHE_TTL_SECONDS determines how long data remains cached before automatic expiration. This is our first line of defense against staleness.
Metrics are essential — Tracking cache hits vs. misses reveals whether caching is actually helping. A 10% hit rate indicates a problem; 95%+ is excellent.
Null handling requires thought — What happens when a user doesn't exist? Should we cache that fact, or let every non-existent ID hit the database?

The Write Path: Invalidation vs. Update-Through

Strategy 1: Cache Invalidation (delete on write)

When data is updated in the database, delete the corresponding cache entry. The next read will trigger a cache miss and reload fresh data.

Strategy 2: Cache Update (update on write)

When data is updated in the database, also update the cache entry with the new value. Subsequent reads hit the cache with already-fresh data.

Both strategies have valid use cases, but invalidation is generally preferred in cache-aside due to its simplicity and consistency properties.

Cache Invalidation

•Delete cache entry on write
•Next read reloads from database
•Simple and predictable
•Naturally handles complex updates
•May cause temporary increased database load
•Preferred for most cache-aside implementations

Cache Update

•Update cache entry on write
•Next read hits cache immediately
•More complex—must maintain consistency
•Can fail if update logic differs from read logic
•Eliminates post-write cache miss penalty
•Useful when reads immediately follow writes

cache-aside-write-invalidation.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
class UserService {
  /**
   * Strategy 1: Cache Invalidation (Recommended)
   * 
   * Order of operations is critical:
   * 1. Update the database first (source of truth)
   * 2. Then delete from cache
   * 
   * This ordering ensures we never have stale data in cache
   * while database has newer data. At worst, a read between
   * step 1 and 2 serves old cached data (acceptable).
   */
  async updateUser(userId: string, updates: Partial<User>): Promise<User> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Step 1: Update the database (source of truth)
    const updatedUser = await this.database.query<User>(
      'UPDATE users SET name = COALESCE($2, name), email = COALESCE($3, email) WHERE id = $1 RETURNING *',
      [userId, updates.name, updates.email]
    );
 
    // Step 2: Invalidate the cache entry
    // Even if this fails, TTL will eventually expire the stale entry
    await this.cache.delete(cacheKey);
 
    // Return the fresh data from database
    return updatedUser;
  }
 
  /**
   * Strategy 2: Cache Update (Alternative)
   * 
   * Update both database and cache. Useful when:
   * - Reads immediately follow writes (user sees their own update)
   * - Cache reconstruction is expensive
   * - You can guarantee the update produces identical data to a fresh read
   */
  async updateUserWithCacheUpdate(userId: string, updates: Partial<User>): Promise<User> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Step 1: Update the database
    const updatedUser = await this.database.query<User>(
      'UPDATE users SET name = COALESCE($2, name), email = COALESCE($3, email) WHERE id = $1 RETURNING *',
      [userId, updates.name, updates.email]
    );
 
    // Step 2: Update the cache with the same data
    // Critical: The cached value must exactly match what a fresh read would return
    await this.cache.set(cacheKey, updatedUser, this.CACHE_TTL_SECONDS);
 
    return updatedUser;
  }
}

Order of Operations Matters

Race Conditions and Consistency Challenges

The Classic Read-Write Race:

Consider two concurrent operations: a read (R) and a write (W) for the same key.

Timeline:
R1: Cache miss, query database → gets value A
    W1: Update database from A to B
    W2: Delete cache entry (succeeds)
R2: Write A to cache (stale!)

This is not theoretical—it happens in production, especially under high load where operations take variable time.

Common Cache-Aside Race Conditions
Scenario	Interleaving	Result	Mitigation
Read-Write Race	Read fetches from DB, Write updates DB and invalidates, Read populates cache	Cache holds stale data	Short TTL, read-before-populate check
Write-Write Race	Two concurrent updates, both invalidate cache	Usually harmless—cache correctly empty	Database handles actual conflict
Read-Read Stampede	Cache expires, 1000 concurrent requests all miss, all query database	Database overwhelmed	Request coalescing, early refresh
Double Population	Two reads miss simultaneously, both query DB, both populate	Wasteful but correct—same data written twice	Distributed locks (often overkill)

cache-aside-race-mitigation.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
class RobustUserService {
  /**
   * Mitigation: Check cache before populating
   * 
   * After fetching from database, check if cache was populated
   * by another request while we were waiting. Only populate if still empty.
   * This reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the read-write race window.
   */
  async getUser(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Initial cache check
    let user = await this.cache.get<User>(cacheKey);
    if (user !== null) {
      return user;
    }
 
    // Cache miss - fetch from database
    user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user === null) {
      return null;
    }
 
    // Mitigation: Only populate if still not in cache
    // SET NX = Set if Not eXists (atomic operation)
    // This prevents overwriting a fresher value that was set while we waited
    await this.cache.setNX(cacheKey, user, this.CACHE_TTL_SECONDS);
 
    return user;
  }
 
  /**
   * Mitigation: Request coalescing for cache stampedes
   * 
   * When cache expires, only one request actually fetches from database.
   * Other concurrent requests wait for that result.
   */
  private inFlightRequests = new Map<string, Promise<User | null>>();
 
  async getUserWithCoalescing(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Check cache first
    const cached = await this.cache.get<User>(cacheKey);
    if (cached !== null) {
      return cached;
    }
 
    // Check if another request is already fetching this user
    const existingRequest = this.inFlightRequests.get(userId);
    if (existingRequest) {
      // Wait for the existing request instead of making a new one
      return existingRequest;
    }
 
    // We're the first—create the fetch promise
    const fetchPromise = this.fetchAndCache(userId, cacheKey);
    this.inFlightRequests.set(userId, fetchPromise);
 
    try {
      return await fetchPromise;
    } finally {
      // Clean up after completion
      this.inFlightRequests.delete(userId);
    }
  }
 
  private async fetchAndCache(userId: string, cacheKey: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user !== null) {
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, user, this.CACHE_TTL_SECONDS);
    }
 
    return user;
  }
}

Embrace Eventual Consistency

Cache Key Design: The Foundation of Effective Caching

Key Design Principles:

Cache Key Best Practices

•Use Hierarchical Namespacing — Structure keys as {service}:{entity}:{identifier}:{variant}. This enables targeted invalidation and debugging.
•Include Version or Schema Identifiers — Prefix with v1: or similar. When your data format changes, increment the version to avoid deserializing old formats.
•Be Deterministic — The same inputs must always produce the same key. Avoid timestamps, random values, or object hashes that vary.
•Keep Keys Readable — Debugging cache issues is hard enough without cryptic keys. user:12345:profile beats u12345p.
•Consider Invalidation Patterns — If you'll need to invalidate all user data, keys like user:12345:* enable pattern-based deletion.

cache-key-factory.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
/**
 * Centralized cache key generation
 * 
 * Benefits:
 * - Consistent key format across entire application
 * - Easy to add versioning, prefixes, or namespaces
 * - Single place to audit key patterns
 * - Enables key-based invalidation strategies
 */
class CacheKeyFactory {
  private readonly namespace: string;
  private readonly version: string;
 
  constructor(namespace: string = 'app', version: string = 'v1') {
    this.namespace = namespace;
    this.version = version;
  }
 
  // Single entity by ID
  user(userId: string): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}`;
  }
 
  // Entity sub-resource
  userProfile(userId: string): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}:profile`;
  }
 
  userPreferences(userId: string): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}:preferences`;
  }
 
  // Collection or list
  userOrders(userId: string, page: number = 1): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}:orders:page:${page}`;
  }
 
  // Query-based cache (parametric)
  productSearch(query: string, filters: ProductFilters): string {
    // Normalize and hash complex query parameters
    const normalizedQuery = query.toLowerCase().trim();
    const filterHash = this.hashFilters(filters);
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:search:products:${normalizedQuery}:${filterHash}`;
  }
 
  // Pattern for wildcard invalidation
  userPattern(userId: string): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:${userId}:*`;
  }
 
  allUsersPattern(): string {
    return `${this.namespace}:${this.version}:user:*`;
  }
 
  private hashFilters(filters: ProductFilters): string {
    // Sort keys for deterministic ordering
    const sortedKeys = Object.keys(filters).sort();
    const normalized = sortedKeys.map(k => `${k}=${filters[k]}`).join('&');
    // Use a simple hash for the key—full value for debugging
    return this.simpleHash(normalized);
  }
 
  private simpleHash(str: string): string {
    // Simple hash function for key generation
    let hash = 0;
    for (let i = 0; i < str.length; i++) {
      const char = str.charCodeAt(i);
      hash = ((hash << 5) - hash) + char;
      hash = hash & hash; // Convert to 32-bit integer
    }
    return Math.abs(hash).toString(36);
  }
}
 
// Usage
const keys = new CacheKeyFactory('myapp', 'v2');
 
// Generates: myapp:v2:user:12345
const userKey = keys.user('12345');
 
// Generates: myapp:v2:user:12345:profile
const profileKey = keys.userProfile('12345');
 
// For invalidation: myapp:v2:user:12345:*
const userPattern = keys.userPattern('12345');

Avoid Common Key Mistakes

Negative Caching: Caching Absence

The Problem:

Consider a user lookup for ID 99999 that doesn't exist. Without negative caching:

Request arrives → cache miss → database query → no result → return null
Next request → cache miss → database query → no result → return null
Repeat forever

Each request hits the database. For high-traffic systems, this becomes a significant load, especially if an attacker intentionally queries non-existent IDs.

negative-caching.ts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
interface CachedUser {
  exists: true;
  user: User;
} | {
  exists: false;
  // No user data—this is a cached negative result
}
 
class UserServiceWithNegativeCaching {
  private readonly POSITIVE_TTL = 3600;    // 1 hour for existing users
  private readonly NEGATIVE_TTL = 300;     // 5 minutes for non-existent users
 
  async getUser(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
 
    // Check cache—may contain positive or negative result
    const cached = await this.cache.get<CachedUser>(cacheKey);
 
    if (cached !== null) {
      if (cached.exists) {
        return cached.user;  // Positive cache hit
      } else {
        return null;  // Negative cache hit—we know this user doesn't exist
      }
    }
 
    // Cache miss—query database
    const user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user !== null) {
      // Cache the positive result
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, { exists: true, user }, this.POSITIVE_TTL);
      return user;
    } else {
      // Cache the negative result (shorter TTL)
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, { exists: false }, this.NEGATIVE_TTL);
      return null;
    }
  }
}
 
/**
 * Alternative: Sentinel value approach
 * 
 * Instead of wrapping in {exists: true/false}, use a sentinel value
 * like a special string or empty object to represent "not found"
 */
class UserServiceSentinel {
  private readonly NOT_FOUND_SENTINEL = '__NOT_FOUND__';
  private readonly NEGATIVE_TTL = 300;
 
  async getUser(userId: string): Promise<User | null> {
    const cacheKey = `user:${userId}`;
    const cached = await this.cache.get<User | string>(cacheKey);
 
    if (cached === this.NOT_FOUND_SENTINEL) {
      return null;  // Negative cache hit
    }
 
    if (cached !== null) {
      return cached as User;  // Positive cache hit
    }
 
    // Cache miss
    const user = await this.database.query<User>(
      'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',
      [userId]
    );
 
    if (user !== null) {
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, user, this.POSITIVE_TTL);
    } else {
      await this.cache.set(cacheKey, this.NOT_FOUND_SENTINEL, this.NEGATIVE_TTL);
    }
 
    return user;
  }
}

Keep Negative TTL Short

When Cache-Aside Excels

Cache-aside isn't universally optimal—no caching pattern is. But it's the best choice in many scenarios:

Cache-aside is ideal when:

Optimal Use Cases for Cache-Aside

•Read-heavy workloads — Applications where data is read far more often than written. Cache-aside shines when you can cache once and serve many times.
•Flexible data sources — When data comes from multiple sources (APIs, databases, computed values), you need explicit control over what gets cached.
•Tolerance for eventual consistency — Brief windows of staleness are acceptable. If you need strong consistency, consider other patterns.
•Complex cache invalidation logic — When invalidation requires business logic (e.g., 'invalidate all orders when inventory changes'), application control is essential.
•Existing systems without cache integration — Adding caching to an existing application is easier with cache-aside since it doesn't require database or cache middleware changes.
•Unpredictable access patterns — Lazy loading naturally adapts to access patterns. Frequently accessed data accumulates in cache; rarely accessed data doesn't waste space.

When to Consider Alternatives

•Write-heavy workloads — Frequent writes mean frequent invalidations, reducing cache effectiveness. Consider write-through or write-behind.
•Strong consistency requirements — If stale data is unacceptable (financial transactions, inventory counts), read-through with synchronous invalidation may be better.
•Cold start sensitivity — If initial cache misses are costly and predictable data needs to be available immediately, consider cache warming or read-through.
•Distributed cache coherency — In multi-region deployments, cache-aside's invalidation model can lead to inconsistency. Purpose-built distributed caching may be needed.

Cache-Aside Decision Matrix
Factor	Favors Cache-Aside	Favors Alternatives
Read/Write Ratio	High (90%+ reads)	Low (frequent writes)
Consistency Requirement	Eventual consistency OK	Strong consistency required
Data Source	Multiple or complex sources	Single database
Invalidation Logic	Complex, business-driven	Simple, automatic
Infrastructure	Separate cache and DB	Integrated caching layer
Cold Start Tolerance	Acceptable miss penalty	Must be pre-warmed

Summary: Mastering Cache-Aside

The cache-aside pattern is the workhorse of production caching. Its explicit, application-controlled nature provides flexibility and transparency at the cost of requiring careful implementation.

Key Takeaways:

Cache-Aside Essentials

•Application owns the coordination — The application explicitly checks cache, queries database on miss, and populates cache. No magic, full control.
•Lazy loading is the default — Data enters cache only when first requested, naturally adapting to access patterns.
•Invalidate on write, database-first — When data changes, update the database first, then invalidate cache. This ordering prevents the worst consistency issues.
•Race conditions are inherent — Cache-aside provides eventual consistency. Short TTLs and request coalescing mitigate but don't eliminate race conditions.
•Key design is foundational — Invest in a consistent, hierarchical key schema. It pays dividends in debugging and invalidation.
•Negative caching prevents abuse — Cache missing data (with short TTL) to protect the database from repeated lookups.
•Metrics drive optimization — Track hit/miss ratios, latencies, and key cardinality. Caching without metrics is flying blind.

What's Next:

Page Complete

1 / 4