← Fidelity Interview Insights

Fidelity·Backend Engineer·Onsite - System Design / Architecture·Senior

Senior
Apr 2026

Summary

System design round at Fidelity for a backend role, pretty deep dive into caching consistency. One main topic but they really wanted you to go wide on it, not just recite patterns but actually reason through the trade-offs for different workloads.

Questions Asked (1)

Q1

How do you handle data inconsistency between Redis and the underlying database? Walk through the patterns you know and their trade-offs.

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This question is wider than it looks.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by acknowledging that Redis is a cache and the database is the source of truth, so inconsistency is inevitable. Then systematically walk through common patterns like Cache-Aside, Write-Through, Write-Behind, and Double-Delete, discussing their trade-offs in terms of consistency, performance, and complexity. Conclude with how you'd choose based on business requirements and mention monitoring and reconciliation.

Pro tip: Emphasize that perfect consistency is often unnecessary; instead, focus on bounding staleness and having a reconciliation process. Mention that at a financial firm like Fidelity, auditability and correctness are paramount, so you'd lean towards patterns that prioritize database integrity.

1. Clarify requirements and constraints

Ask about consistency needs (strong vs eventual), read/write ratios, latency requirements, and tolerance for stale data. This shows you tailor solutions to context.

2. Explain the baseline: Cache-Aside

Describe the standard pattern: read from cache, on miss read from DB and populate cache; write to DB and invalidate cache. Discuss its simplicity and common pitfalls like race conditions.

3. Discuss write patterns and their trade-offs

Compare Write-Through (write to cache and DB synchronously) vs Write-Behind (write to cache, async to DB). Highlight consistency, performance, and durability implications.

4. Address invalidation strategies and race conditions

Cover deletion vs update, double-delete with delay, and using versioning or timestamps to avoid stale writes. Mention the read-repair approach.

5. Propose reconciliation and monitoring

Suggest periodic reconciliation jobs, TTLs, and monitoring for cache hit ratio and inconsistency metrics. Emphasize that eventual consistency is often acceptable if bounded.

Key Points to Mention

  • Cache-Aside pattern and its variants (read-through, write-through, write-behind)
  • Trade-offs: consistency vs performance vs complexity
  • Race conditions in cache invalidation (e.g., concurrent read/write)
  • Techniques like double-delete, versioning, and TTLs
  • Reconciliation processes and monitoring for drift
  • Business context: financial data requires strong consistency and auditability

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.