Write-Around Caching - Learning Module

Loading content...

0/273

Use Cases for Write-Around Caching

Choosing the Right Tool for the Job

Write-around caching isn't just a technique—it's a philosophy about cache efficiency. By now, you understand the mechanics: writes bypass the cache, reads populate it lazily, and the cache naturally fills with data that's proven valuable through actual access.

But knowing how write-around works isn't enough. The crucial skill is knowing when to apply it. This page synthesizes everything you've learned into a practical decision framework, with real-world examples that illustrate where write-around excels—and where it doesn't.

What You Will Learn

By the end of this page, you will have a clear decision framework for choosing write-around caching. You'll understand the workload patterns it serves best, see concrete industry examples, and be able to articulate precisely why write-around is (or isn't) the right choice for your system.

The Decision Framework

Deciding between caching strategies requires analyzing your workload across multiple dimensions. The following framework helps you systematically evaluate whether write-around is appropriate.

Write-Around Selection Criteria

•Read-to-Write Ratio — How many reads occur per write? Write-around shines when reads >> writes, but many writes aren't read at all.
•Read-After-Write Latency Tolerance — Is immediate consistency required after writes? Write-around causes a cache miss on first read after write.
•Write Volume Relative to Cache Size — Would all written data fill the cache? Write-around prevents cache pollution from write-heavy workloads.
•Hot/Cold Data Distribution — Do most reads hit a small subset of data? Write-around naturally caches only the hot subset.
•Durability Requirements — Is data loss acceptable? Write-around guarantees database persistence before acknowledgment.
•Staleness Tolerance — Can reads temporarily return outdated data? Write-around may serve stale data until TTL expires.

Caching Strategy Selection Guide
Criterion	Write-Around	Write-Through	Write-Back
Read-heavy, diverse writes	✅ Optimal	⚠️ Cache pollution	⚠️ Cache pollution
Write-heavy, sparse reads	✅ Optimal	❌ Wasted cache space	❌ Wasted cache space
Immediate read-after-write	❌ Cache miss	✅ Optimal	✅ Optimal
Strong durability needed	✅ DB confirms write	✅ DB confirms	⚠️ Cache loss risk
Write latency critical	⚠️ DB latency	❌ Slowest	✅ Fastest
Cache memory limited	✅ Efficient use	❌ May overflow	❌ May overflow
Simple operations	✅ Simple	✅ Simple	⚠️ Complex

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
interface WorkloadProfile {
  readsPerSecond: number;
  writesPerSecond: number;
  readAfterWritePercentage: number;  // % of writes followed by immediate read
  uniqueWriteKeysPerDay: number;
  cacheSizeBytes: number;
  averageValueSizeBytes: number;
  readAfterWriteLatencyToleranceMs: number;
  dataLossTolerance: 'none' | 'some' | 'acceptable';
  staleDataToleranceSeconds: number;
}
 
function recommendCachingStrategy(profile: WorkloadProfile): CachingRecommendation {
  const readWriteRatio = profile.readsPerSecond / profile.writesPerSecond;
  const cacheCapacity = profile.cacheSizeBytes / profile.averageValueSizeBytes;
  const writeWouldFillCache = profile.uniqueWriteKeysPerDay > cacheCapacity;
  
  // Decision tree
  if (profile.dataLossTolerance === 'none' && profile.readAfterWriteLatencyToleranceMs < 10) {
    return {
      strategy: 'write-through',
      reason: 'Requires both durability and immediate read-after-write',
    };
  }
  
  if (profile.dataLossTolerance === 'acceptable' && readWriteRatio > 5) {
    return {
      strategy: 'write-back',
      reason: 'Can tolerate some data loss, benefits from write amplification reduction',
    };
  }
  
  if (writeWouldFillCache && profile.readAfterWritePercentage < 20) {
    return {
      strategy: 'write-around',
      reason: 'High write volume with sparse read-after-write prevents cache pollution',
      confidence: 0.95,
    };
  }
  
  if (readWriteRatio > 10 && profile.staleDataToleranceSeconds > 60) {
    return {
      strategy: 'write-around',
      reason: 'Read-heavy with staleness tolerance allows lazy cache population',
      confidence: 0.85,
    };
  }
  
  // Default to write-through for safety
  return {
    strategy: 'write-through',
    reason: 'Conservative default when workload is unclear',
    confidence: 0.60,
  };
}

When in Doubt, Measure

Theoretical analysis only goes so far. The best approach is often to implement write-around with feature flags, measure actual cache efficiency, and compare against alternatives. Real workload data trumps predictions.

Optimal Use Cases for Write-Around

Write-around caching excels in specific scenarios where its characteristics—database-first writes, lazy cache population, and natural hot-data filtering—provide clear advantages.

Ideal Write-Around Scenarios

•Logging and Analytics — Massive write volume, rarely read in real-time, eventually processed in batches.
•Event Sourcing — Events written continuously, only recent/active aggregates read frequently.
•Content Publishing — Content created/edited infrequently, read millions of times after publication.
•Bulk Data Import — Large data loads that shouldn't pollute the cache with cold data.
•Audit Trails — Legal/compliance records written constantly, rarely accessed except during audits.
•User-Generated Content Backlog — Posts, comments, uploads that may never be viewed.
•IoT/Telemetry Data — Sensors generating data continuously, only recent readings actively queried.

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
// Example: Analytics event tracking
// Pattern: Write-heavy, rarely read in real-time
 
class AnalyticsEventService {
  constructor(
    private cache: WriteAroundCache<AnalyticsEvent>,
    private database: Database<AnalyticsEvent>,
    private batchProcessor: BatchProcessor
  ) {}
 
  // Write Path: High volume (10,000+ events/second)
  // These events are NEVER read immediately after write
  async trackEvent(event: AnalyticsEvent): Promise<void> {
    // Write-around: Goes straight to database/stream
    await this.database.insertEvent(event);
    
    // Cache is NOT populated
    // Why? These events will be:
    // 1. Processed in hourly/daily batches
    // 2. Never queried individually in real-time
    // 3. Totaling millions per day (would overflow cache)
  }
 
  // Read Path: Occasional, pattern-based access
  // When events ARE read, cache helps subsequent reads
  async getEventsForUser(
    userId: string, 
    timeRange: TimeRange
  ): Promise<AnalyticsEvent[]> {
    const cacheKey = `events:${userId}:${timeRange.hash()}`;
    
    // Check cache first
    const cached = await this.cache.get(cacheKey);
    if (cached !== null) return cached;
    
    // Miss: Query database (aggregation query)
    const events = await this.database.queryEvents(userId, timeRange);
    
    // Populate cache for subsequent requests
    // This specific query might be repeated (user viewing dashboard)
    await this.cache.set(cacheKey, events, 300); // 5 min TTL
    
    return events;
  }
}
 
// Why write-around works here:
// 1. Individual events (writes) are never read immediately
// 2. Aggregated results (reads) benefit from caching
// 3. Write volume (millions/day) would pollute cache
// 4. Read patterns are predictable (dashboards, reports)

Write-Around Fit Analysis by Use Case
Use Case	Write Volume	Read Pattern	Write-Around Fit	Reason
Application logs	Very High	Rare, batch	✅ Excellent	Prevents log flood in cache
Product catalog	Low	Very High	✅ Excellent	Reads naturally cache hot items
Order history	Medium	Sparse	✅ Good	Most orders never viewed again
User sessions	Medium	Immediate	⚠️ Consider	Read-after-write latency critical
Real-time chat	High	Immediate	❌ Poor	Messages read right after send

Real-World Industry Examples

Let's examine how major systems and industries apply write-around caching principles to solve real-world challenges.

Example 1: E-Commerce Product Discovery

A large e-commerce platform handles:

Writes: Merchants updating product details, prices, inventory
Reads: Customers browsing products, searching, viewing details

Why Write-Around Works:

Product updates are infrequent relative to product views
A merchant updating a product doesn't guarantee immediate views
Millions of products exist; caching all would exceed capacity
Hot products (bestsellers, promoted items) naturally get cached through reads

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
class ProductCatalogCache {
  // Merchant updates product (write path)
  async updateProduct(productId: string, updates: ProductUpdates): Promise<void> {
    // Write-around: Update database directly
    await this.database.updateProduct(productId, updates);
    
    // Invalidate cache (optional, for faster consistency)
    await this.cache.delete(`product:${productId}`);
    
    // NOT populating cache because:
    // 1. Merchant may be editing, not publishing yet
    // 2. Product might have low traffic (long-tail catalog)
    // 3. Cache should hold products customers actually view
  }
  
  // Customer views product (read path)
  async getProduct(productId: string): Promise<Product | null> {
    // This is where cache population happens
    const cached = await this.cache.get(`product:${productId}`);
    if (cached) return cached;
    
    const product = await this.database.getProduct(productId);
    if (product) {
      // This product was accessed - worth caching
      await this.cache.set(`product:${productId}`, product, 600);
    }
    return product;
  }
  
  // Bulk catalog management (write path)
  async bulkImportProducts(products: Product[]): Promise<void> {
    // Large import - definitely write-around
    await this.database.bulkInsert(products);
    
    // Cache untouched
    // If we cached all 100,000 imported products,
    // we'd evict hot products customers are actually viewing!
  }
}

Example 2: Content Delivery Network (CDN)

CDNs use write-around at the edge layer:

Writes: Origin server pushes new/updated content
Reads: End users request content from edge nodes

Why Write-Around (Pull-Based) Works:

Not all content will be requested at every edge location
Pre-pushing content to 200+ edge locations wastes bandwidth
Regional demand varies—only cache what's popular in each region
Natural cache warming through user requests

Example 3: Social Media Feed Generation

Social platforms handle:

Writes: Users post content, comments, reactions
Reads: Users viewing feeds, profiles, individual posts

Write-Around Application:

User creates a post → Stored in database, NOT cached globally
First reader requests post → Cache miss, populate from database
Subsequent readers → Cache hit, fast response
Viral posts → Naturally cached due to high read volume
Unpopular posts → Never waste cache space

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
class SocialPostCache {
  async createPost(userId: string, content: PostContent): Promise<Post> {
    // Write to database (primary storage)
    const post = await this.database.createPost(userId, content);
    
    // Write-around: NOT caching the new post globally
    // Reasons:
    // 1. Post might only be seen by a few followers
    // 2. If post goes viral, reads will cache it
    // 3. Prevents cache pollution from low-engagement content
    
    // However: Update the author's post list cache
    await this.invalidateUserPostsCache(userId);
    
    return post;
  }
  
  async getPost(postId: string): Promise<Post | null> {
    const cached = await this.cache.get(`post:${postId}`);
    if (cached) {
      this.metrics.recordCacheHit();
      return cached;
    }
    
    const post = await this.database.getPost(postId);
    if (post) {
      // Post is being read - cache it
      // TTL based on post age (older = longer cache, less likely to change)
      const ttl = this.calculateTTL(post.createdAt);
      await this.cache.set(`post:${postId}`, post, ttl);
    }
    
    this.metrics.recordCacheMiss();
    return post;
  }
  
  private calculateTTL(createdAt: Date): number {
    const ageHours = (Date.now() - createdAt.getTime()) / (1000 * 60 * 60);
    
    if (ageHours < 1) return 60;      // New: 1 min (might be edited)
    if (ageHours < 24) return 300;    // Recent: 5 min
    return 3600;                       // Old: 1 hour (stable)
  }
}

The Common Thread

In all these examples, the key insight is the same: writes don't predict reads. The data written might or might not be accessed, and caching speculatively would waste resources. Letting reads drive cache population naturally optimizes for actual demand.

Anti-Patterns: When NOT to Use Write-Around

Understanding when write-around is the wrong choice is just as important as knowing when it's right. These anti-patterns indicate you should consider alternative strategies.

Write-Around Anti-Patterns

•Confirmation Pages — User submits form, immediately sees confirmation. Cache miss creates perceptible delay.
•Real-Time Collaboration — Document edits must appear instantly to all participants. Eventual consistency breaks the experience.
•Financial Transactions — Account balance must reflect writes immediately. Stale data causes incorrect decisions.
•Session State — User actions depend on immediately-consistent session data. Read-your-writes is mandatory.
•Gaming Leaderboards — Score updates must reflect instantly or players perceive unfairness.
•Inventory with Race Conditions — Showing stale inventory can oversell products.

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
// ANTI-PATTERN: Write-around for checkout flow
 
class CheckoutService_WRONG {
  async placeOrder(cart: Cart, payment: Payment): Promise<Order> {
    // Create order in database (write-around)
    const order = await this.database.createOrder(cart, payment);
    
    // Cache NOT populated...
    // User redirected to confirmation page
    return order;
  }
  
  async getOrderConfirmation(orderId: string): Promise<Order | null> {
    // PROBLEM: User lands here IMMEDIATELY after placeOrder
    // Cache miss guaranteed!
    const cached = await this.cache.get(`order:${orderId}`);
    if (cached) return cached; // Will never hit on first view
    
    // User waits 20-50ms for database query
    // This feels slow after just completing checkout
    return this.database.getOrder(orderId);
  }
}
 
// CORRECT: Use write-through for checkout flow
 
class CheckoutService_CORRECT {
  async placeOrder(cart: Cart, payment: Payment): Promise<Order> {
    const order = await this.database.createOrder(cart, payment);
    
    // Write-through: Populate cache immediately
    await this.cache.set(`order:${order.id}`, order, 3600);
    
    return order;
  }
  
  async getOrderConfirmation(orderId: string): Promise<Order | null> {
    // Cache HIT guaranteed - instant response
    const cached = await this.cache.get(`order:${orderId}`);
    if (cached) return cached;
    
    // Fallback to database (shouldn't happen for fresh orders)
    const order = await this.database.getOrder(orderId);
    if (order) await this.cache.set(`order:${orderId}`, order, 3600);
    return order;
  }
}

Strategy Selection by Read-After-Write Pattern
Scenario	Read-After-Write?	Recommended Strategy	Rationale
Form submission → Confirmation	Always, immediate	Write-Through	Eliminate first-read latency
Product update → Product page	Sometimes, delayed	Write-Around + Invalidation	Invalidate stale, populate on demand
Log event → Dashboard (batch)	Eventually, aggregated	Write-Around (pure)	No immediate read expected
Chat message → Recipient view	Always, real-time	Write-Through or Pub/Sub	Real-time delivery required
User signup → Profile page	Always, immediate	Write-Through	User expects to see profile

User Perception Matters

Even if 50ms of latency is 'fast' by technical standards, users notice it in workflows where they just performed an action. The mental model is: 'I just did something, show me the result NOW.' Write-around breaks this expectation; write-through preserves it.

Hybrid Caching Strategies

Real-world systems rarely use a single caching strategy uniformly. The most effective architectures apply different strategies to different data types based on their access patterns.

The Hybrid Approach:

Categorize your data by access pattern and apply the appropriate strategy to each category:

Data Category	Access Pattern	Strategy
User sessions	Read-after-write, security-critical	Write-Through
Product catalog	Write-sparse, read-heavy	Write-Around
Shopping cart	Read-after-write, user-facing	Write-Through
Order history	Write-once, rarely-read	Write-Around
Analytics events	Write-only, never real-time read	Write-Around (skip cache)
Leaderboards	Real-time, high write + read	Write-Back or Write-Through

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
// Hybrid cache that applies different strategies per data type
 
type CachingStrategy = 'write-through' | 'write-around' | 'write-back' | 'cache-skip';
 
interface DataTypeConfig {
  strategy: CachingStrategy;
  ttl: number;
  invalidateOnWrite: boolean;
}
 
class HybridCache<T> {
  private configs: Map<string, DataTypeConfig> = new Map([
    ['user:', { strategy: 'write-through', ttl: 1800, invalidateOnWrite: true }],
    ['session:', { strategy: 'write-through', ttl: 3600, invalidateOnWrite: true }],
    ['product:', { strategy: 'write-around', ttl: 600, invalidateOnWrite: true }],
    ['order:', { strategy: 'write-around', ttl: 3600, invalidateOnWrite: false }],
    ['cart:', { strategy: 'write-through', ttl: 1800, invalidateOnWrite: true }],
    ['analytics:', { strategy: 'cache-skip', ttl: 0, invalidateOnWrite: false }],
    ['log:', { strategy: 'cache-skip', ttl: 0, invalidateOnWrite: false }],
  ]);
 
  async write(key: string, value: T): Promise<void> {
    const config = this.getConfig(key);
    
    switch (config.strategy) {
      case 'write-through':
        // Cache AND database together
        await Promise.all([
          this.database.write(key, value),
          this.cache.set(key, value, config.ttl),
        ]);
        break;
        
      case 'write-around':
        // Database only, optionally invalidate
        await this.database.write(key, value);
        if (config.invalidateOnWrite) {
          await this.cache.delete(key);
        }
        break;
        
      case 'write-back':
        // Cache first, async database
        await this.cache.set(key, value, config.ttl);
        this.asyncDatabaseWrite(key, value);
        break;
        
      case 'cache-skip':
        // Database only, no cache interaction
        await this.database.write(key, value);
        break;
    }
  }
 
  async read(key: string): Promise<T | null> {
    const config = this.getConfig(key);
    
    if (config.strategy === 'cache-skip') {
      // Direct database read for non-cached data
      return this.database.read(key);
    }
    
    // Standard cache-aside read for all other strategies
    const cached = await this.cache.get(key);
    if (cached !== null) return cached;
    
    const data = await this.database.read(key);
    if (data !== null) {
      await this.cache.set(key, data, config.ttl);
    }
    return data;
  }
 
  private getConfig(key: string): DataTypeConfig {
    for (const [prefix, config] of this.configs) {
      if (key.startsWith(prefix)) return config;
    }
    // Default to write-around
    return { strategy: 'write-around', ttl: 300, invalidateOnWrite: true };
  }
}

Start Simple, Evolve

Don't over-engineer from day one. Start with write-around as your default (it's safest for durability and cache efficiency), then identify specific data types that need write-through based on user-facing latency requirements.

Migration and Adoption Strategies

Adopting write-around caching in an existing system requires careful planning. Here's a practical approach to migration.

Migration Steps

•Analyze Current Cache Usage — Measure hit rates, identify which data is being cached, and categorize by access pattern.
•Identify Write-Around Candidates — Find data types with high write volume but sparse or delayed reads.
•Implement Dual-Write (Shadow Mode) — Write to both old and new caching strategy, compare results.
•Gradual Traffic Shift — Route a percentage of traffic to the new strategy, monitor metrics.
•Validate Consistency — Confirm that eventual consistency is acceptable for migrated data types.
•Full Rollout — Complete migration with rollback capability if issues emerge.

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
class CacheMigrator {
  constructor(
    private oldCache: WriteThoughCache,
    private newCache: WriteAroundCache,
    private featureFlags: FeatureFlags,
    private metrics: MetricsCollector
  ) {}
 
  async write(key: string, value: any): Promise<void> {
    const useNewStrategy = await this.shouldUseNewStrategy(key);
    
    if (useNewStrategy) {
      // Write-around: Database only
      await this.database.write(key, value);
      await this.newCache.invalidate(key);
      
      // Shadow: Also write to old cache for comparison
      if (this.featureFlags.get('shadow_mode')) {
        await this.oldCache.set(key, value).catch(() => {});
      }
      
      this.metrics.record('write_strategy', 'write_around');
    } else {
      // Legacy write-through
      await Promise.all([
        this.database.write(key, value),
        this.oldCache.set(key, value),
      ]);
      
      this.metrics.record('write_strategy', 'write_through');
    }
  }
 
  async read(key: string): Promise<any> {
    const useNewStrategy = await this.shouldUseNewStrategy(key);
    
    if (useNewStrategy) {
      const result = await this.newCache.get(key);
      
      // Shadow comparison
      if (this.featureFlags.get('shadow_mode')) {
        const oldResult = await this.oldCache.get(key).catch(() => null);
        if (JSON.stringify(result) !== JSON.stringify(oldResult)) {
          this.metrics.record('cache_divergence', key);
        }
      }
      
      return result;
    } else {
      return this.oldCache.get(key);
    }
  }
 
  private async shouldUseNewStrategy(key: string): Promise<boolean> {
    // Gradual rollout by data type AND traffic percentage
    const dataType = this.extractDataType(key);
    const rolloutPercent = await this.featureFlags.get(
      `write_around_rollout.${dataType}`
    );
    
    // Consistent hashing ensures same key always uses same strategy
    const keyHash = this.consistentHash(key);
    return keyHash < rolloutPercent;
  }
}

Monitor During Migration

During migration, heavily monitor: cache hit rates, database query volume, p99 latencies, and user-facing error rates. Be prepared to rollback quickly if metrics degrade unexpectedly.

Performance Benchmarks and Expectations

When implementing write-around caching, set realistic performance expectations based on your workload characteristics.

Expected Performance by Workload Type
Workload	Expected Hit Rate	Write Latency	Read Latency (Hit)	Read Latency (Miss)
Read-heavy (95% reads)	85-95%	5-20ms	<2ms	10-30ms
Balanced (50/50)	60-80%	5-20ms	<2ms	10-30ms
Write-heavy (80% writes)	40-60%	5-20ms	<2ms	10-30ms
Bulk import phase	10-30%	5-15ms	<2ms	10-30ms
Steady state (post-warm)	80-95%	5-20ms	<2ms	10-30ms

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
interface PerformanceBaseline {
  targetHitRate: number;
  maxWriteLatencyP99: number;
  maxReadHitLatencyP99: number;
  maxReadMissLatencyP99: number;
  maxDatabaseQPS: number;
}
 
class PerformanceValidator {
  private baseline: PerformanceBaseline = {
    targetHitRate: 0.85,          // 85% cache hit rate
    maxWriteLatencyP99: 50,       // 50ms max write
    maxReadHitLatencyP99: 5,      // 5ms max cache hit
    maxReadMissLatencyP99: 100,   // 100ms max cache miss
    maxDatabaseQPS: 1000,         // 1000 queries/sec to DB
  };
 
  validate(metrics: CacheMetrics): ValidationResult {
    const issues: ValidationIssue[] = [];
    
    if (metrics.hitRate < this.baseline.targetHitRate) {
      issues.push({
        severity: 'warning',
        metric: 'hitRate',
        actual: metrics.hitRate,
        expected: this.baseline.targetHitRate,
        suggestion: 'Consider increasing cache size or TTL',
      });
    }
    
    if (metrics.writeLatencyP99 > this.baseline.maxWriteLatencyP99) {
      issues.push({
        severity: 'critical',
        metric: 'writeLatencyP99',
        actual: metrics.writeLatencyP99,
        expected: this.baseline.maxWriteLatencyP99,
        suggestion: 'Database write performance degraded',
      });
    }
    
    if (metrics.dbQPS > this.baseline.maxDatabaseQPS * 0.8) {
      issues.push({
        severity: 'warning',
        metric: 'dbQPS',
        actual: metrics.dbQPS,
        expected: this.baseline.maxDatabaseQPS,
        suggestion: 'Approaching database capacity limit',
      });
    }
    
    return {
      passed: issues.filter(i => i.severity === 'critical').length === 0,
      issues,
    };
  }
}

Baseline Before Optimization

Always measure current performance before implementing write-around. Without a baseline, you can't prove the new strategy is better. Track before/after metrics for: hit rate, latency percentiles, database load, and cache memory usage.

Summary: Mastering Write-Around Caching

Write-around caching is a powerful strategy for systems where writes don't predict reads. By letting read demand drive cache population, you build naturally efficient caches that hold truly valuable data without pollution from transient writes.

Module Key Takeaways

•Write-around routes writes to the database, bypassing the cache — Data enters the cache only through read operations.
•Database-first writes guarantee durability — No data loss window; ACID transactions are fully supported.
•Lazy cache population is demand-driven — Only data that's actually read consumes cache space.
•Cache misses have costs — First-read latency, database load, and potential cascading failures require mitigation strategies.
•Use write-around for logging, bulk imports, content publishing, and read-heavy workloads — It excels where writes don't correlate with immediate reads.
•Avoid write-around for confirmation flows, real-time systems, and sessions — These require immediate read-after-write consistency.
•Hybrid strategies apply different policies to different data types — Match strategy to access pattern for optimal results.

Write-Around Quick Reference
Characteristic	Write-Around Behavior	Implication
Write path	Database only	Durability guaranteed
Read path	Cache → DB → Cache	Lazy population
First read after write	Cache miss	Higher latency
Cache pollution	Prevented	Efficient cache use
Consistency	Eventually consistent	Staleness possible
Complexity	Low	Easy to implement/operate

The Expert Perspective:

As a Principal Engineer evaluating caching strategies, remember that write-around represents a philosophical choice: optimize for the common case, not the edge case. Most data written will never be read, or will be read much later when lazy loading is perfectly acceptable. By not caching speculatively, you preserve cache space for data with proven value.

The best engineers don't just implement write-around—they understand why it works for their specific workload and can articulate the trade-offs to stakeholders. This module has given you that depth of understanding.

Module Complete

Congratulations! You've completed the Write-Around Caching module. You now understand the complete mechanics—how writes bypass the cache, how reads populate it, what happens on cache misses, and when to apply this strategy. You're equipped to design, implement, and optimize write-around caching for production systems.