You might not need Redis

When I was in Uber back in 2015, my org was trying to convert zip-code-based geo partitioning with a hexagon-based scheme. Instead of partitioning a city into on average tens of zip codes, we may partition the city into potentially hundreds of thousands of hexagons and dynamically create areas. The first launch was in Phoenix, and the team who was responsible for the launch stayed up all night for days because they could barely scale our demand-pricing systems. And then the global launch of the feature was delayed first by days, then by weeks, and then by months.

It turned out Uber engineers just loved Redis. Having a need to distribute your work? Throw that to Redis. I remember debating with some infra engineers why we couldn't throw in more redis/memcached nodes to scale our telemetry system, but I digressed. So, the price service we built was based on Redis. The service fanned out millions of requests per second to redis clusters to get information about individual hexagons of a given city, and then computed dynamic areas. We would need dozens of servers just to compute for a single city. I forgot the exact number, but let's say it was 40 servers per an average-sized city. Now multiply that by the 200+ cities we had. It was just prohibitively expensive, let alone that there couldn't other scalability bottlenecks for managing such scale.

The solution was actually pretty simple. I took a look at the algorithms we used, and it was really just that we needed to compute multiple overlapping shapes. So, I wrote an algorithm that used work-stealing to compute the shapes in parallel per city on a single machine, and used Elasticsearch to retrieve hexagons by a number of attributes -- it was actually a perfect use case for a search engine because the retrieval requires boolean queries of multiple attributes. The rationale was pretty simple too: we needed to compute repetitively on the same set of data, so we should retrieve the data only once for multiple computations. The algorithm was of merely dozens of lines, and was implemented and deployed to production over the weekend by this amazing engineer Isaac, who happens to be the author of the library H3. As a result, we were able to compute dynamic areas for 40 cities, give or take, on a single machine, and the launch was unblocked.

I have gotten in arguments with people who over-deploy Redis. Redis is cool, I don't dislike it or anything, but a lot of the time when people use it, it actually slows things down.

Using it, you're introducing network latency and serialization overhead. Sometimes that's worth it, especially if your database is falling over, but a lot of the time people use it and it just makes everything more complex and worse.

If you need to share cached data across processes or nodes, sometimes you have to use it, but a lot of the stuff I work with is partitioned anyway. If your data is already partitioned, you know what works well a lot of the time? A boring, regular hashmap.

Pretty much every language has some thread-safe hashmap in there, and a lot of them have pretty decent libraries to handle invalidation and expiration if you need those. In Java, for example, you have ConcurrentHashMap for simple stuff, and Guava Caches or Caffeine Caches for more advanced stuff.

Even the slowest [1] local caching implementation will almost certainly be faster than anything that hits the network; in my own testing [2] Caffeine caches have sub-microsecond `put` times, and you don't pay any serialization or deserialization cost. I don't think you're likely to get much better than maybe sub-millisecond times with Redis, even in the same data center, not to mention if you're caching locally that's one less service that you have to babysit.

Again, I don't hate Redis, there are absolutely cases where it's a good fit, I just think it's overused.

[1] Realistic I mean, obviously any of use could artificially construct something that is slow as we want.

[2] https://blog.tombert.com/posts/2025-03-06-microbenchmark-err... This is my own blog, feel free to not click it. Not trying to plug myself, just citing my data.

I believe that the issue is that the culture about Redis usage didn't evolve as much as its popularity. To use it memcached alike has many legitimate use cases but it's a very reductive way to use it. For instance sorted set ranking is something that totally changes the dynamics of what you can and can't do with traditional databases. Similarly large bitmaps that allow to retain very fast real time one bit information to do analytics otherwise very hard to do is another example. Basically, Redis helps a lot more as the company culture around it increases, more patterns are learned, and so forth. But in this regard a failure on the Redis (and my) side is that there isn't a patterns collection book: interviewing folks that handled important use cases (think at Twitter) to understand the wins and the exact usage details and data structure usages. Even just learning the writable cache pattern totally changes the dynamics of your Redis experience.

It’s not about Redis vs not Redis, it’s about working with data that does not serialize well or lend itself well to extremely high update velocity.

Things like: counters, news feeds, chat messages, etc

The cost of delivery for doing these things well with a LSM based DB or RDB might actually be higher than Redis. Meaning: you would need more CPUs/memory to deliver this functionality, at scale, than you would with Redis, because of all the overhead of the underlying DB engine.

But for 99% of places that aren’t FAANG, that is fine actually. Anything under like 10k QPS and you can do it in MySQL in the dumbest way possible and no one would ever notice.

Software development today is largely just people repeating what other people do without thinking. Which is how human culture works; we just copy what everyone else is doing, because it's easier, and that becomes "normal", whatever it is.

In the software world in the mid 00's, the trend started to work around the latency, cost and complexity of expensive servers and difficult databases by relying on the speed of modern networks and RAM. This started with Memcached and moved on to other solutions like Redis.

(this later evolved into NoSQL, when developers imagined that simply doing away with the complexity of databases would somehow magically remove their applications' need to do complex things... which of course it didn't, it's the same application, needing to do a complex thing, so it needs a complex solution. computers aren't magic. we have thankfully passed the hype cycle of NoSQL, and moved on to... the hype cycle for SQLite)

But the tradeoff was always working around one limitation by adding another limitation. Specifically it was avoiding the cost of big databases and the expertise to manage them, and accepting the cost of dealing with more complex cache control.

Fast forward to 2025 and databases are faster (but not a ton faster) and cheaper (but not a ton cheaper) and still have many of the same limitations (because dramatically reinventing the database would have been hard and boring, and no software developer wants to do hard and boring things, when they can do hard and fun things, or ignore the hard things with cheap hacks and pretend there is no consequence to that).

So people today just throw a cache in between the database, because 1) databases are still kind of stupid and hard (very very useful, but still stupid and hard) and 2) the problems of cache complexity can be ignored for a while, and putting off something hard/annoying/boring until later is a human's favorite thing.

No, you don't need Redis. Nobody needs Redis. It's a hack to avoid dealing with stateless applications using slow queries on an un-optimized database with no fast read replicas and connection limits. But that's normal now.

I agree with the author 100% (the TanTan anecdote is great, super clever work!), but.... sometimes you do need Redis, because Redis is the only production-ready "data structure server" I'm aware of

If you want to access a bloom filter, cuckoo filter, list, set, bitmap, etc... from multiple instances of the same service, Redis (slash valkey, memorydb, etc...) is really your only option

You might not need a cache. In my previous company (~7 years) all teams around me were introducing caches left and right and getting into a lot of complexity and bugs. I persevered and always pushed back adding caches to apps in my team. Instead focusing on improving the architecture and seeking other performance improvements. I can proudly say my teams have stayed cached-free for those 7 years.

The issues that I have with Redis are not at all its API (which is elegant and brilliant) or even its serialized, single-core, single-threaded design, but its operational hazards.

As a cache or ephemeral store like a throttling/rate limiting, lookup tables, or perhaps even sessions store, it's great; but it's impossible to rely on the persistence options (RDB, AOF) for production data stores.

You usually only see this tendency with junior devs, though. It might be a case where "when all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails", or when someone discovers Redis (or during the MongoDB hype cycle ten years ago), which seems like it's in perfect alignment with their language datatypes, but perhaps this is mostly because junior devs don't have as many production-ready databases (from SQL like Postgresql, CockroachDB, Yugabyte to New/NoSQL like ScyllaDB, YDB, Aerospike) to fall back on.

Redis shines as a cache for small data values (probably switch to memcache for larger values, which is simpler key-value but generally 3 to 10 times faster for that more narrow use case, although keep an eye on memory fragmentation and slab allocation)

Just think carefully before storing long-term data in it. Maybe don't store your billing database in it :)

I'm really surprised that the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that people are recommending not to use Redis.

Sure, don't introduce a data store into your stack unless you need it. But if you had to introduce one, Redis still seems like one of the best to introduce? It has fantastic data structures (like sorted sets, hash maps), great performance, robust key expiry, low communication overhead, low runtime overhead... I mean, the list goes on.

Redis as ephemeral cache is ok, but nothing extra.

Redis as transactional, distributed and/or durable storage is pretty poor. Their "active active" docs on conflict resolution for example don't fill me with confidence given there is no formalism, just vague examples. But this comes from people who not only not know how do distributed locks, they refuse to learn when issues are pointed out to them: https://martin.kleppmann.com/2016/02/08/how-to-do-distribute...

Every time I find code that claims to do something transactional in Redis which is critical for correctness, not just latency optimization, I get worried.

I followed with this rationale in a small project and opted for PostgreSQL pub/sub instead Redis. But I went through so much trouble correctly handling PostgreSQL disconnections that I wonder if Redis wouldn't be the better choice.

> A single beefy Redis (many cores, lots of RAM type of machine) should be able to handle the load

I thought Redis was single threaded running on a single core.

Having multiple cores provides no benefit (and arguably could hurt since large multicore systems typically have a lower clock)