We Thought Caching Would Save Us-But It Just Hid the Real Problems
Article summary
We Thought Caching Would Save Us-But It Just Hid the Real Problems The first time we added caching, it felt like magic. Queries dropped from 800ms to 20ms. Load on our SQL Server instance dropped. Everyone was happy-until the incidents started rolling in. Stale data. Conflicting writes. Unclear ownership of invalidation logic. And worst of all: engineers stopped optimizing queries because “it’s cached.” This is the story of how caching masked the symptoms, but never solved the root causes-and how we learned to make SQL performance the foundation, not the fallback. What Went Wrong 1. We Cached Around Broken Queries Instead of fixing N+1 lookups or missing indexes, we just cached their outputs. The queries stayed bad-but we masked it with Redis. 2. We Didn’t Design for Invalidation Cache invalidation wasn’t coordinated.
Read Full Article on MediumPractical takeaway
The main idea behind We Thought Caching Would Save Us-But It Just Hid the Real Problems is to help teams move from broad theory to clear, repeatable decision making. When teams apply this thinking, they reduce ambiguity and focus on improvements that deliver measurable momentum.
Example scenario
Imagine a team facing competing priorities. By applying the ideas in We Thought Caching Would Save Us-But It Just Hid the Real Problems, they can map dependencies, identify risks and choose the next move that produces progress without destabilizing their system.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Trying to redesign everything instead of taking small steps.
- Ignoring real constraints like incentives, ownership or legacy systems.
- Creating documents that do not lead to any change in code or decisions.
How to apply this in real work
Start by identifying where We Thought Caching Would Save Us-But It Just Hid the Real Problems already shows up in your architecture or delivery flow. Then pick one area where clarity would reduce friction. Apply the idea, measure its effect and share the learning.
Signs you are doing it correctly
- Teams make decisions faster and with fewer disagreements.
- Architectural conversations become clearer and less abstract.
- Changes land safely with fewer surprises or rework cycles.