Library / Blogs

LinkedIn Engineering: Data

The engineering and technology blog of LinkedIn: posts on how it designs, builds and scales its systems.

IntermediateKafkaDatabases

By LinkedIn engineers · LinkedIn · Added 2026-10-12

Open original source

All content belongs to LinkedIn engineers / LinkedIn. We only link to it and give credit. Report a problem

Learn this article

About 37 min left. Your work is saved as you go.

What you are about to study

LinkedIn wrote this to explain how they thought about a problem. You should know the basics: caching, queues and replication.

Ideas you will meet

Kafka
Distributed commit log for event streaming at scale.
Databases
Schemas, indexes, query plans and choosing a store.

What we already know about this

Our own lessons on these ideas. Read them here before you start, so it makes sense.

  • Core Concepts: How Things Actually Work · 7 minWhy Kafka is fastSequential disk writes, batching, zero-copy and partitions: the design choices behind its throughput.Read here

    What Kafka is

    Kafka is a distributed commit log: producers append messages to topics, and consumers read them at their own pace. Messages are kept for a retention period, not deleted when read, so many consumers can read the same data, and replay it.

    Why it is so fast

    1. Sequential I/O. Each partition is an append-only log. Writing to the end of a file and reading in order is vastly faster than random access.
    2. The page cache. Kafka relies on the operating system's cache rather than its own heap, so recent data is served from memory without extra copying or garbage collection.
    3. Batching. Producers and brokers group many messages per request, and data is compressed per batch, amortising network and disk costs.
    4. Zero-copy transfer. The broker can send data from the file cache to the network socket without copying it through application memory.
    5. Partitioning. A topic is split into partitions spread over brokers, so reads and writes happen in parallel.
    6. A simple model. The broker mostly appends and serves byte ranges. Consumers track their own position (the offset), so the broker does little bookkeeping per message.

    Figure SDA-CORE-10-1 · Why it is so fast · © forcsguy.com

    Figure SDA-CORE-10-2 · Zero-copy: fewer trips through memory · © forcsguy.com

    Ordering and parallelism

    • Order is guaranteed within a partition, not across a whole topic.
    • The message key decides the partition, so related events (same customer) stay in order.
    • A consumer group shares partitions: each partition is read by exactly one consumer in the group. More partitions allow more parallel consumers.

    Reliability

    • Each partition is replicated to several brokers: one leader and followers.
    • Producers choose an acknowledgment level (acks): faster with fewer, safer with all in-sync replicas.
    • Consumers commit offsets after processing. If they crash, they resume from the last committed offset, so processing is at-least-once and handlers should be idempotent.

    When to use it, and when not

    Good for event streams, log and metric pipelines, and decoupling systems with replayable history. A plain task queue (RabbitMQ, SQS) can be simpler when you only need work distribution and no replay.

    More on this site

    Open this lesson with its quiz and exercise

  • Databases Deep Dive · 12 minReplication topologies and multi-region databasesSingle-leader, multi-leader and leaderless replication, how they handle conflicts and lag, and what changes across regions.Read here

    Why replicate

    Replication keeps copies of data on several machines for three reasons: availability (survive a node failure), read scaling (serve reads from replicas) and latency (put data near users). The hard part is keeping copies consistent while writes continue. (Basics are in the replication and sharding lesson of the foundations course; this lesson compares the topologies.)

    Single-leader (primary and replicas)

    One node, the leader (primary or master), accepts writes and ships its changes to followers (replicas), which serve reads.

    Figure SDA-DDV-04-1 · Single-leader replication · © forcsguy.com

    • Synchronous replication waits for a follower before acknowledging: safer, slower, and a stalled follower can block writes. Asynchronous is faster but a failover can lose the latest writes. A common compromise: one synchronous follower, others asynchronous.
    • Failover must detect failure, choose the most up-to-date replica, redirect clients and ensure the old leader does not come back believing it still leads (split brain).
    • Replication lag causes stale reads. Techniques: read-your-writes (route a user's reads to the leader shortly after they write), monotonic reads (keep a user on one replica), and checking replica position.

    Multi-leader

    Several nodes accept writes (often one per region) and replicate to each other. Benefits: local write latency and continued operation if a region is cut off. Cost: write conflicts.

    Conflict handling options:

    • Avoid them: route all writes for one record to one leader (for example by user or region).
    • Last write wins by timestamp: simple, but silently drops one of two concurrent updates and depends on clocks.
    • Merge values (union of sets, counters) using mergeable data types (CRDTs; see the collaborative editing lesson).
    • Custom resolution in application code, or ask the user.

    Multi-leader also appears in offline-capable apps (each device is a leader) and collaborative editing.

    Before: single leader

    After: multi-leader across regions

    What changed

    • Users in each region write to a nearby database
    • Concurrent edits to the same row need conflict handling
    • More moving parts to run and monitor

    Leaderless (Dynamo-style)

    Any replica accepts writes; clients write to several replicas and read from several, using quorums (W + R > N) to get fresh data (see the key-value store lesson). Background anti-entropy and read repair fix stale copies; versions or vector clocks detect conflicts. It favours availability and is typical of Cassandra and DynamoDB-style stores.

    Figure SDA-DDV-04-2 · Choosing a replication model · © forcsguy.com

    Multi-region designs

    • Active-passive: one region serves writes; another is a warm standby. Simple; failover loses a little data (the replication lag) and takes minutes.
    • Active-active: several regions serve traffic. Requires either partitioning data by home region (each record has one home, cross-region reads are replicas) or true multi-leader conflict handling.
    • Global databases use consensus across regions (see the consensus lesson) for strong consistency at the cost of cross-region write latency; some offer tunable consistency per query.
    • Latency numbers matter: a cross-ocean round trip is around 100 ms or more, so synchronous cross-region replication adds that to every write.
    • Data residency laws may require keeping certain users' data in a region.

    Partitioning and replication together

    Real systems shard data into partitions and replicate each partition (a leader per partition spreads write load across nodes). Rebalancing, hot partitions and cross-partition transactions are the new problems (see sharding and the consistent-hashing lesson).

    Master/slave naming

    You will see "master/slave", "primary/replica" and "leader/follower" for the same single-leader idea; most current documentation prefers the last two.

    Checklist

    • What happens to writes if the leader or a region is lost, and how long?
    • How much data can we lose (RPO) and how long can we be down (RTO)?
    • How do we handle stale reads from replicas?
    • Who resolves conflicts, and how?
    • Have we practised failover?

    Real-world reading

    Open this lesson with its quiz and exercise

  • Databases Deep Dive · 13 minChoosing a database typeA practical map from workload to database: relational, document, key-value, wide-column, search, graph, time-series and vector stores.Read here

    Start from the access pattern

    There is no best database; there is a best database for a workload. Ask:

    1. What are the main queries (by key, by range, by search, by relationship)?
    2. How much data and how fast does it grow? Read/write ratio?
    3. What consistency and transaction guarantees are needed?
    4. What latency is required, and where are users?
    5. What can your team operate?

    The families

    Figure SDA-DDV-05-1 · Map from need to database family · © forcsguy.com

    Relational (PostgreSQL, MySQL)

    Tables, SQL, joins, constraints, ACID transactions. The default for most business data. PostgreSQL has rich features (JSON, full-text, extensions, many index types); MySQL is widely deployed and simple to operate. They scale vertically very far, and read replicas and sharding extend them. Choose when data is structured, relationships matter and correctness is critical.

    Document (MongoDB and similar)

    Stores JSON-like documents; flexible schema; related data can be embedded in one document so a single read gets everything. Good for content, catalogues and objects read whole. Watch for duplicated data, joins you must do in code, and weaker multi-document transaction habits.

    Key-value (Redis, Memcached; DynamoDB as a key-value/wide hybrid)

    Lookup by key at very low latency. Redis adds data structures (hashes, sorted sets, lists, bitmaps), persistence and clustering (see the Redis lesson). Ideal for caches, sessions, counters, rate limits, leaderboards. Not for ad-hoc queries.

    Wide-column and partitioned key stores (Cassandra, DynamoDB, HBase)

    Data is partitioned by a partition key across many nodes; you design tables around queries. Excellent write throughput, horizontal scale and availability. Cost: limited query flexibility, careful key design (hot partitions), eventual consistency by default. Good for event logs, messaging history, time-ordered user data.

    Search engines (Elasticsearch, OpenSearch, Solr)

    Build an inverted index (word to documents) for full-text search, relevance scoring, filters and facets. Usually a secondary copy of data from a primary database, kept in sync. Not a system of record: treat it as a derived index that can be rebuilt.

    Graph (Neo4j and others)

    Stores nodes and relationships and answers questions that follow connections: friends of friends, fraud rings, recommendations, dependency analysis. Where many-hop traversals would need expensive recursive joins in SQL, a graph database is natural.

    Time-series (InfluxDB, TimescaleDB, Prometheus)

    Optimised for append-heavy, timestamped data with time-range queries, downsampling and retention. Used for metrics, IoT and finance ticks (see the metrics monitoring lesson). Keep tag cardinality low.

    Vector databases (and vector indexes in other databases)

    Store embeddings (arrays of numbers representing meaning) and find the nearest neighbours, using approximate indexes (graph-based or clustering) for speed. Used for semantic search and retrieval for AI applications. Many general databases now offer vector indexes, which can be enough for moderate scale and avoids another system.

    A quick chooser

    NeedFirst choice
    Business data with relationships and transactionsRelational
    Flexible, self-contained recordsDocument
    Cache, session, counter, leaderboardRedis
    Massive write volume, simple access by keyWide-column / DynamoDB-style
    Full-text search and facetsSearch engine
    Many-hop relationship queriesGraph
    Metrics and sensor dataTime-series
    Semantic similarityVector index
    Analytics on large historyWarehouse or lakehouse (see the big data course)

    Polyglot persistence and its price

    Many systems use several stores, each for what it does best: a relational database as the source of truth, a cache, a search index and a metrics store fed from it. The cost is keeping them in sync (change events, outbox pattern, rebuild jobs), more to operate and more failure modes. Add a store only when a measured need justifies it.

    SQL versus NoSQL, honestly

    "NoSQL" is a family of different designs, not one thing. Relational databases scale further than many assume; NoSQL stores often give up joins and some consistency for scale and flexibility. Decide on requirements, not fashion. If in doubt, start relational and specialise later.

    Questions before committing

    • Can we model our top ten queries easily?
    • What happens at 10 times the data? At a regional failure?
    • How do we back up, restore, migrate and monitor it?
    • Does the team know it, and is it supported well on our platform?

    Real-world reading

    Open this lesson with its quiz and exercise

Go deeper on this

A path through videos, articles, other case studies and code on the same ideas as LinkedIn Engineering: Data.

  1. Warm upGet the vocabulary first.

  2. WatchHow others solve the same problem, on video.

    Videos belong to their creators and play from YouTube. More on YouTube (opens in a new tab)

  3. ReadEngineers explain it in their own words.

  4. See it in another companyThe same ideas, a different system.

  5. Read the codeSee how it looks when it is real.

Keep learning

Loading community…