Scaling Writes medium
You use Hash Partitioning to distribute data evenly. What is the downside when you need to run a Range Query (e.g., `SELECT * FROM Users WHERE ID > 100`)?
- A It is faster than Range Partitioning.
- B You cannot run the query.
- C Scatter-Gather: Since the keys are hashed randomly, 'adjacent' IDs are scattered across all shards. The query must check *every* shard.
- D It causes a deadlock.
Answer: C. Scatter-Gather: Since the keys are hashed randomly, 'adjacent' IDs are scattered across all shards. The query must check *every* shard.
Hash partitioning destroys locality. ID 100 might be on Server A, ID 101 on Server B. You lose the ability to efficiently scan a sequence of data.
One system design question a day, with spaced repetition so the ones you miss come back.
Get the appRelated questions
- What does the 'Atomicity' property in a database transaction guarantee regarding writes?
- Your database is struggling with write traffic. You decide to 'Scale Up' (Vertical Scaling) by buying a bigger server. What is the eventual hard limit of this strategy?
- A developer sets up a 'Fire-and-Forget' write pattern (sending data without waiting for a database confirmation) to speed up the app. What is the major risk?
- Why is inserting 1,000 rows in a single 'Batch' query faster than executing 1,000 separate `INSERT` queries?
- In the Raft consensus algorithm, what mechanism prevents a 'Split Vote' (where no leader gets a majority) from stalling the cluster indefinitely?
- Your 'Logs' table has 10 billion rows and writes are getting slow. You barely access logs older than 1 year. What is the simplest strategy to improve performance?