Let's design a system to efficiently manage meeting room bookings for a large company. Consider the following:
Specifically, discuss the system architecture, data models, key algorithms, and potential bottlenecks. How would you address these bottlenecks to ensure the system remains responsive and reliable?
Let's design a system to efficiently manage meeting room bookings for a large company.
The system architecture will consist of the following components:
[High-Level Architecture Diagram]
Client --> API Gateway --> Booking Service <--> Room Service
API Gateway --> User Service
Booking Service --> Calendar Integration Service
Booking Service <--> Database <--> Cache
Booking Service --> Message Queue
We'll use a relational database (e.g., PostgreSQL) to store the system data.
Field | Type | Description |
---|---|---|
user_id | UUID | Unique identifier for the user |
username | VARCHAR(255) | Username for login |
VARCHAR(255) | Email address | |
password_hash | VARCHAR(255) | Hashed password |
first_name | VARCHAR(255) | First name |
last_name | VARCHAR(255) | Last name |
calendar_id | VARCHAR(255) | Identifier for external calendar integration |
Field | Type | Description |
---|---|---|
room_id | UUID | Unique identifier for the room |
room_name | VARCHAR(255) | Name of the room |
capacity | INTEGER | Maximum number of attendees |
location | VARCHAR(255) | Location of the room |
equipment | TEXT[] | Array of equipment available in the room |
Field | Type | Description |
---|---|---|
booking_id | UUID | Unique identifier for the booking |
room_id | UUID | Foreign key referencing the Rooms table |
user_id | UUID | Foreign key referencing the Users table |
start_time | TIMESTAMP | Start time of the booking |
end_time | TIMESTAMP | End time of the booking |
meeting_title | VARCHAR | Title of the meeting |
description | TEXT | Description of the meeting |
recurring | BOOLEAN | Indicates if the booking is recurring |
recurrence_rule | TEXT | Rule for recurrence (e.g., RRULE |
GET /rooms/availability
{
"start_time": "2024-01-22T09:00:00Z",
"end_time": "2024-01-22T10:00:00Z",
"attendees": 10
}
* Response:
[
{
"room_id": "...",
"room_name": "Meeting Room A",
"capacity": 12
},
{
"room_id": "...",
"room_name": "Meeting Room B",
"capacity": 15
}
]
POST /bookings
{
"room_id": "...",
"user_id": "...",
"start_time": "2024-01-22T09:00:00Z",
"end_time": "2024-01-22T10:00:00Z",
"meeting_title": "Daily Stand-up",
"description": "...",
"recurring": true,
"recurrence_rule": "RRULE:FREQ=WEEKLY;BYDAY=MO,TU,WE,TH,FR;COUNT=4"
}
* Response:
{
"booking_id": "...",
"status": "confirmed"
}
Get booking details:
GET /bookings/{booking_id}
Cancel a booking:
DELETE /bookings/{booking_id}
Component | Approach | Pros | Cons | Alternative Approaches | Pros | Cons |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Database | Relational (e.g., PostgreSQL) | Strong consistency, ACID properties, well-suited for complex queries and relationships. | Can be more complex to scale horizontally compared to NoSQL databases. | NoSQL (e.g., MongoDB) | Easier horizontal scaling, more flexible schema. | Eventual consistency, less suitable for complex relationships and transactions. |
Caching | Redis | Fast in-memory data access, reduces load on the database. | Data invalidation can be challenging. | Memcached | Similar performance characteristics. | Simpler but fewer features than Redis. |
Message Queue | Kafka | High throughput, fault-tolerant, suitable for asynchronous tasks like calendar synchronization and reporting. | More complex to set up and manage compared to simpler message queues. | RabbitMQ | Easier to set up and manage. | Lower throughput compared to Kafka. |
Calendar Integration | Polling and Webhooks | Supports real-time updates and synchronization. | Complex implementation due to varying calendar API limitations and inconsistencies. | Batch Synchronization | Simpler implementation. | Less real-time synchronization. |