Navigating Complex System Design Trade-Offs Like a Pro

Building any sizable system—whether it’s an e-commerce site, a real-time messaging app, or a data analytics pipeline—involves juggling multiple priorities.

You want to optimize for speed, but not at the expense of reliability.

You want a user-friendly interface, but you can’t neglect security.

You need to scale to millions of users, but you also want to stay cost-effective.

System design is all about trade-offs. There’s rarely a single “best” option that meets every requirement perfectly.

Instead, you make choices that optimize certain attributes at the expense of others—balancing the pros and cons until you find an approach that aligns with your goals and constraints.

Balancing those decisions is key to building robust, scalable, and maintainable systems.

Throughout this blog, we’ll explore:

• Why trade-offs are inescapable in the design and operation of complex systems.
• How to identify and evaluate the most relevant trade-offs for your situation.
• Techniques and frameworks to help you make well-informed decisions.
• Real-world case studies that show how others have succeeded (and sometimes failed).

By the end, you’ll have a clearer understanding of how to think about complexity holistically, weigh different options effectively, and maintain a continuous improvement mindset.

Our ultimate goal is to help you “navigate complex system trade-offs like a pro” by blending solid engineering principles with systems thinking.

And if you’re preparing for a system design interview—or simply want to sharpen your design skills—you might find these resources helpful:

• System Design Interview PDF: A Complete Roadmap & Checklist for Preparation
• System Design Tutorial for Beginners 2025
• 18 System Design Concepts Every Engineer Must Know Before the Interview

Let’s jump right in.

2. Why Trade-Offs Are at the Heart of System Design

2.1. A Tale of Competing Priorities

Imagine you’re building a social media platform for millions of users.

You want the site to load instantly (performance), handle massive traffic spikes (scalability), and never lose user data (reliability). You also want robust security measures to protect user information (security), but you don’t want so many authentication layers that people get frustrated and bail (usability).

On top of that, you’ve got a limited budget (cost), and your marketing team wants to roll out new features every two weeks (time-to-market).

No matter how skilled your engineering team is, you can’t max out every one of these metrics simultaneously. There are always going to be constraints. If you invest heavily in top-tier servers for perfect reliability, costs might skyrocket. If you focus too much on speed, you might compromise security. The question isn’t how to eliminate trade-offs, but how to balance them.

2.2. The Nature of Complex Systems

Complex systems are characterized by:

• Emergent behavior: Outcomes that are not easily predicted from individual parts.
• Interdependent components: Changes in one area can cascade through others.
• Adaptive feedback loops: Systems might evolve or respond in unexpected ways over time.

Because of this, there’s never a one-size-fits-all solution. Each choice (like which database to use or how to partition services) can shift the system’s equilibrium.

Your mission is to manage these trade-offs deliberately, rather than letting them manage you.

2.3. Why We Can’t Just ‘Solve’ Complexity

Some people think that if we collect enough data or build a sophisticated AI model, we’ll magically bypass trade-offs.

However, more data doesn’t necessarily solve the fundamental tension between competing goals. And while advanced tools can provide deeper insights, they also add layers of complexity that bring new trade-offs (for instance, interpretability vs. accuracy in machine learning models).

It’s better to accept that trade-offs exist and approach them systematically. This perspective lets you make strategic compromises while keeping a clear view of your priorities.

3. High-Level System Design Trade-Offs

When we talk about “trade-offs,” we usually refer to balancing different attributes. Here are some of the most common dimensions where tension arises:

1. Performance vs. Reliability
   • Performance is about speed—how fast your system responds to requests.
   • Reliability is about consistency—how often your system is available and error-free.
   • Improving performance often means caching aggressively or skipping redundant checks, which can introduce reliability risks if not carefully managed.
2. Scalability vs. Simplicity
   • Scalability focuses on how well your system can handle growth in users or data.
   • Simplicity is about having a straightforward design that’s easy to maintain.
   • Highly scalable architectures can become complicated, while simple designs may struggle under heavy loads.
3. Security vs. Usability
   • Security protects the system from malicious attacks or unauthorized access.
   • Usability ensures that real users can navigate features easily without friction.
   • Tighter security measures often create extra steps, which can frustrate users.
4. Cost vs. Quality
   • Cost can mean anything from infrastructure expenses to developer hours.
   • Quality includes code quality, user experience, and system reliability.

• Stricter quality controls and thorough testing can raise costs (and time to market).

5. Time-to-Market vs. Technical Debt
   • Time-to-market is crucial for competitive advantage, especially in fast-moving industries.
   • Technical debt accumulates when you take shortcuts. Over time, it can slow you down significantly.
   • Shipping fast might mean skipping best practices or writing quick hacks, which pile up technical debt that must be addressed later.
6. Innovation vs. Stability
   • Innovation drives new features and cutting-edge technology adoption.
   • Stability keeps things running reliably without constant disruptions.
   • Over-prioritizing innovation can destabilize existing processes; too much stability can stifle growth.

Understanding these core dimensions will help you see why “you can’t have it all” without making some tough choices.

Of course, the actual trade-offs you face will depend on your business goals, user expectations, and resource constraints.

4. Technical System Design Trade-offs

Let’s discuss the technical system design trade-offs:

4.1. Scalability vs. Performance

Key Idea:

• Scalability is a system’s ability to handle increasing loads (more users, more data) without a significant drop in service quality.
• Performance generally refers to how efficiently the system handles requests (e.g., speed and throughput) under a specific load.

In some cases, you might design a system to perform extremely well for a smaller number of users, only to find that the architecture struggles when that user base grows.

Conversely, you might build a robust and highly scalable infrastructure but pay a small performance cost per request due to added overhead (like load balancers, service discovery, etc.).

As with many topics in system design, trade-offs arise between immediate performance optimization and future scalability needs.

4.2. Horizontal vs. Vertical Scaling

Key Idea:

• Vertical Scaling (aka “scaling up”) means adding more resources (CPU, RAM) to a single machine. It’s straightforward (just upgrade the server), but there's a practical limit—machines can get very expensive, and you can’t infinitely “scale up.”
• Horizontal Scaling (aka “scaling out”) means adding more machines to distribute the workload. This can be cheaper and has virtually unlimited potential, but it introduces complexity in coordinating multiple nodes (e.g., data replication, load balancing).

Trade-Offs:

• Vertical Scaling is simpler to implement but can become costly and has a hard limit.
• Horizontal Scaling can handle massive user growth but requires a more complex setup, possibly leading to new issues with consistency, networking, and operational overhead.

4.3. Monolithic vs. Microservices Architecture

Key Idea:

• Monolithic Architecture puts all application components (UI, business logic, data layer) into a single deployable unit. Easy to start with, but can become unwieldy as your team and codebase grow.
• Microservices Architecture breaks the application into smaller, loosely coupled services that communicate (often via network calls). Each service can be owned by a separate team, use different technology stacks, and be deployed independently.

Trade-Offs:

• Monolithic systems are simpler to develop initially (especially for small teams), test in a single environment, and deploy in one go. But they become tricky to scale and maintain once the application grows large.
• Microservices facilitate horizontal scaling and autonomous teams but introduce complexity around network latency, deployment orchestration, and service discovery.

4.4. Read-Through vs. Write-Through Cache

Key Idea:

• Read-Through Cache: When your application requests data, it goes through the cache first. If the data is missing (cache miss), the cache retrieves it from the database, then returns the result and stores it.
• Write-Through Cache: When data is written, it’s written to both the cache and the underlying database at the same time, ensuring the cache is always up to date.

Trade-Offs:

• Read-Through caching can simplify reads, but if you don’t handle updates carefully, your cache might become stale.
• Write-Through caching ensures consistency between cache and database but might slow down write operations.

4.5. Stateful vs. Stateless Architecture

Key Idea:

• Stateless Architecture: Each request is self-contained. The server doesn’t rely on stored information from previous requests. Example: RESTful APIs typically keep no session data on the server side.
• Stateful Architecture: The server stores data about the client’s session or ongoing interactions. Each request might need context from prior interactions.

Trade-Offs:

• Stateless designs are simpler to scale horizontally because any server instance can handle any request (no session affinity needed). However, you might need external storage (like a cache or database) to maintain user states, preferences, or sessions.
• Stateful designs can be more straightforward for features that require session context (e.g., streaming applications, certain real-time games), but they’re harder to distribute. You must worry about session replication or ensure the user always hits the same server.

4.6. Latency vs. Throughput

Key Idea:

• Latency is the time it takes for a single request to travel from the client, get processed by the server, and return.
• Throughput is how many requests (or tasks) the system can handle over a period (e.g., requests per second).

They’re related but not identical.

You might have a system that handles 10,000 requests per second (high throughput) but each request takes 500 ms to complete (relatively high latency). Conversely, you could have near-instant responses (low latency) but only handle 100 requests per second before saturating.

Trade-Offs:

• Minimizing latency often means optimizing the path of each request, which could reduce concurrency or require more hardware.
• Maximizing throughput often means focusing on parallelism, queues, or batch processing—which might slightly increase the round-trip time for individual requests.

4.7. TCP vs. UDP

Key Idea:

• TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) ensures reliable, ordered, error-checked delivery of data. This is great when accuracy matters (e.g., file transfers, most web traffic).
• UDP (User Datagram Protocol) focuses on speed and minimal overhead. It doesn’t guarantee order or reliability. Often used for real-time applications (online gaming, video streaming) where dropping a few packets is better than slowing down the entire stream.

Trade-Offs:

• TCP’s reliability ensures data integrity but can incur overhead (like connection setup, retransmissions for lost packets).
• UDP’s lightweight nature can reduce latency but might drop packets or deliver them out of order.

4.8. Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Processing

Key Idea:

• Synchronous processing means the client waits for the server to finish before moving on (blocking). This is easier to reason about but can slow down overall responsiveness.
• Asynchronous processing lets the client continue other tasks while the server works in the background, possibly returning results via callbacks or events. This can speed up overall system throughput.

Trade-Offs:

• Synchronous requests are simpler for tasks that need immediate confirmation. But if the server takes too long, you risk blocking the entire workflow.
• Asynchronous can handle higher concurrency, especially for I/O-heavy tasks, but it complicates error handling and flow control.

4.9. Long Polling vs. WebSockets

Key Idea:

• Long Polling: The client sends a request and waits (possibly up to a timeout) for the server to respond with data. If nothing new happens, the server responds empty, and the client repeats the request.
• WebSockets: A full-duplex channel established between client and server. Both can send data to each other at any time without repeated requests.

Trade-Offs:

• Long Polling works on top of HTTP, simpler to implement in many cases, but can lead to inefficiency (lots of requests, some returning no new data).
• WebSockets provide real-time, two-way communication with lower overhead once the connection is established. However, they can be more complex to set up and scale, especially if your system isn’t designed for persistent connections.

4.10. SQL vs. NoSQL Databases

Key Idea:

• SQL (Relational) Databases: Use structured tables, schemas, and support ACID transactions. Examples: MySQL, PostgreSQL. Great for structured data and complex queries.
• NoSQL Databases: A broader category (document stores, key-value stores, wide-column, graph). Designed to handle large, unstructured data at scale. Often more flexible in schema design.

Trade-Offs:

• SQL is ideal for strong consistency, complex queries (JOINs, transactions), and well-understood use cases. But scaling horizontally can be harder (sharding can be complex).
• NoSQL is flexible, typically easier to scale out, and suits large or rapidly changing data schemas. However, you may sacrifice ACID guarantees (or implement them differently).

4.11. Normalization vs. Denormalization

Key Idea:

• Normalization structures your database to reduce data redundancy. Each piece of information is stored in one place, typically leading to smaller storage usage and fewer update anomalies.
• Denormalization duplicates data to optimize read performance. By storing frequently accessed fields together, you can reduce the need for JOINs or multiple lookups.

Trade-Offs:

• Normalized databases are tidy and consistent but often require more complex queries, especially if data is scattered across multiple tables.
• Denormalized databases can speed up read-heavy workloads, but you risk data inconsistencies if you don’t update the duplicated fields correctly.

4.12. Strong vs. Eventual Consistency

Key Idea:

• Strong Consistency means that once a write operation is complete, all subsequent reads will see that updated data immediately.
• Eventual Consistency means that updates propagate through the system over time. Readers might see stale data briefly, but eventually, everything converges.

Trade-Offs:

• Strong Consistency is straightforward for users (everyone sees the latest data) but can be slower or less available in distributed systems (e.g., network partitions can block updates).
• Eventual Consistency allows higher availability and better performance but clients might read old data for a short period.

4.13. Consistency vs. Availability

Key Idea:

• In a distributed system, you can only fully guarantee Consistency (all nodes see the same data at the same time), Availability (every request receives a response), and Partition Tolerance (the system continues operating despite network splits) in pairs, not all three simultaneously. This is the heart of the CAP theorem.

Trade-Offs:

• Choosing Consistency over Availability means you’ll block requests or return errors during a network partition to ensure data correctness.
• Choosing Availability over Consistency means the system always replies, but some replies might be based on outdated data.

4.14. Batch vs. Stream Processing

Key Idea:

• Batch Processing handles large chunks of data at once, often on a set schedule (hourly, daily, etc.). Example: processing all of yesterday’s sales data at midnight.
• Stream Processing handles data in real-time or near real-time, processing events as they come in. Example: real-time dashboards of financial transactions or IoT sensor readings.

Trade-Offs:

• Batch is simpler for large-scale analytics that doesn’t require instant results, but data is always slightly out of date.
• Stream is more complex to implement (requires specialized frameworks, like Apache Kafka or Spark Streaming), but it gives real-time insights.

4.15. REST vs. GraphQL

Key Idea:

• REST is a traditional style for building web APIs, with fixed endpoints representing resources (e.g., /users, /orders).
• GraphQL lets clients query and structure the data they want, all from a single endpoint. It can reduce over-fetching (getting unwanted data) or under-fetching (needing multiple calls for necessary data).

Trade-Offs:

• REST: Simpler to design for many use cases, widely adopted, and easily cached at the HTTP level. But clients might have to make multiple requests for related data.
• GraphQL: Flexible and can be more efficient for clients (they get exactly what they need in one round trip). However, the server must handle more complex query parsing and might face performance challenges if clients request large, nested data structures.

5. Understanding the Big Picture: System Thinking 101

Before diving into specific decision-making frameworks, it’s crucial to adopt a systems thinking mindset. Systems thinking encourages you to look at how different parts of a system interact, rather than isolating them.

5.1. Seeing the Whole Elephant

There’s a classic parable about six blind men touching different parts of an elephant—one thinks it’s a tree trunk (leg), another thinks it’s a rope (tail), and so on. Each individual is correct about what they feel, but none of them understand the elephant as a whole.

Complex systems are similar.

Your security team might see everything through a security lens, while your product team focuses on user experience. It’s vital to step back and see the entire “elephant.”

5.2. Feedback Loops

Feedback loops are a driving force in complex systems.

For example, if your system slows down, you might add more caching. But as caching grows, you risk serving stale data. This stale data might cause user complaints, which lead you to implement more thorough validation checks—further complicating your architecture.

Positive (amplifying) and negative (stabilizing) feedback loops constantly push and pull on your system.

5.3. Causal Loop Diagrams

Causal loop diagrams let you visualize the relationships between different variables.

Think of them as maps showing how increasing one thing (like caching) might decrease another (freshness of data). This technique helps you see non-obvious consequences and better predict unintended side effects.

5.4. Avoiding Siloed Thinking

In organizations, it’s easy for teams to become siloed—developers might focus on code performance, QA on bugs, operations on uptime, and so on.

Systems thinking encourages cross-functional collaboration. When everyone understands the broader impacts of their actions, it becomes easier to negotiate trade-offs that serve the whole system.

6. Tools and Techniques for Evaluating Trade-Offs

No single method can magically simplify all complex trade-offs, but several tried-and-true techniques can help you weigh options more systematically.

Consider blending multiple approaches to get a well-rounded perspective.

6.1. Weighted Scoring Models

• You list all your requirements or decision criteria (e.g., cost, performance, security).
• Assign each criterion a weight based on importance.
• Score each possible solution on how well it meets each criterion.
• Multiply by the weight and sum it up.

Weighted scoring is straightforward and forces you to articulate priorities. However, it can oversimplify complexity, so treat it as a guide rather than a definitive answer.

6.2. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

AHP is a more formal version of weighted scoring. You compare each criterion pairwise (e.g., is cost more critical than performance?), which results in more nuanced weights.

Then you evaluate each solution against these refined weights.

AHP can be powerful, but it’s also time-consuming. It’s often used for large-scale decisions like infrastructure investments or vendor selection.

6.3. Pro-Con Lists and SWOT Analysis

Sometimes you just need a quick method to get a sense of pros, cons, opportunities, and threats.

A SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) provides a 2x2 matrix that captures internal and external factors. This approach is less precise than scoring models but encourages a broad, brainstorming-style discussion.

6.4. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)

If you can assign a monetary value to both the costs and benefits of a decision, CBA helps you see which option yields the best return on investment (ROI).

Beware, though, that intangible factors (like user satisfaction or brand impact) are hard to quantify.

Don’t ignore them just because they’re tricky to measure.

6.5. Scenario Planning

Scenario planning involves sketching out multiple future states of the world—e.g., what if our user base doubles?

What if regulations tighten?

You then test each option under these different scenarios. This approach helps you gauge resilience and adaptability.

6.6. Risk-Based Approaches

• Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA): Identify where and how a system might fail, estimate severity, frequency, and detectability.
• Monte Carlo simulations: Use probabilistic modeling to simulate thousands (or millions) of potential outcomes.
• Sensitivity analysis: Assess how sensitive your system is to small changes in critical variables.

By focusing on risk, you can identify which trade-offs pose the greatest threats, ensuring you allocate resources where they matter most.

6.7. System Design Mock Interviews and Checklists

If you’re preparing for system design interviews, or even if you just want to hone your architecture skills, running through mock interviews and checklists can highlight hidden trade-offs.

One great resource is the System Design Interview PDF: A Complete Roadmap & Checklist for Preparation. It offers structured ways to break down requirements and think critically about trade-offs.

7. Real-World Examples of Common Trade-Offs

Let’s apply these concepts to a few everyday scenarios in tech. These examples illustrate how trade-offs manifest in different situations.

7.1. Choosing a Database: SQL vs. NoSQL

• SQL databases (like PostgreSQL) offer strong consistency, a robust query language, and well-understood ACID transactions. However, scaling horizontally can be challenging, and read/write performance might lag under extreme loads.
• NoSQL databases (like MongoDB or Cassandra) can scale horizontally more easily and handle unstructured data. But you might sacrifice relational integrity, or you’ll have to implement certain data integrity checks at the application level.

In this case, the trade-off is often between consistency and scalability/flexibility.

Some teams solve this by using a hybrid approach: a relational database for core transactional data and a NoSQL solution for analytics or user activity logs. You end up juggling multiple data stores, which introduces new complexities (like data synchronization).

7.2. Caching Strategy in Web Applications

• Heavy Caching improves performance by reducing database calls. This is great for read-heavy workloads.
• Minimal Caching ensures you always serve fresh data, lowering the risk of stale content.

The tension here is performance vs. data freshness.

If you cache aggressively, you might have to introduce mechanisms to invalidate or update caches. That’s a trade-off: the more advanced your caching strategy, the more overhead you have in coordinating updates.

7.3. Monolith vs. Microservices Architecture

• Monolithic architecture simplifies development since all components are in one codebase, making it easier to test and deploy initially.
• Microservices let you scale each service independently and use different tech stacks per service, but coordinating them can become complex, and you have more potential points of failure.

Thus, simplicity vs. scalability is one key trade-off.

Microservices also introduce network latency and debugging complexity. If you adopt microservices without a compelling need, you might be overcomplicating your system.

7.4. Feature Development vs. System Stability

• Fast iteration means you can rapidly release new features, satisfy market demands, and learn from user feedback.
• Stability requires thorough testing, code reviews, and cautious release cycles.

If you’re a startup, you might accept more risk to get to market quickly.

An enterprise handling critical financial transactions might prioritize stability and compliance. Balancing these mindsets is crucial—often, companies do a canary release or phased rollout to mitigate some risks.

7.5. Security vs. Usability in Authentication

• Strict security with multifactor authentication (MFA), regular password resets, and complex requirements can protect user data.
• High usability means fewer hurdles for the user, a frictionless sign-up process, and rapid onboarding.

A balanced approach might be to implement risk-based authentication, where high-risk actions require additional checks while day-to-day usage remains convenient. This addresses security vs. usability in a more nuanced way.

8. Putting It All Together: A Step-by-Step Guide

Below is a condensed approach you can adapt for your context, whether you’re designing a brand-new system or reviewing an existing one.

1. Identify Key Objectives
   • List the top 3-5 attributes you need (e.g., low latency, strong security, easy maintainability).
   • Rank them in order of priority.
2. Gather Requirements
   • Define use cases and user journeys.
   • Quantify needs where possible (e.g., target latency, expected user count).
3. Brainstorm Solutions
   • Don’t limit your creativity. Consider various architectural patterns, technology stacks, or process changes.
4. Evaluate Trade-Offs
   • Use a mix of methods (weighted scoring, AHP, cost-benefit analysis) to see how each solution fares against your priorities.
   • Identify the top risks and how to mitigate them.
5. Make a Decision
   • Involve the relevant stakeholders to confirm alignment.
   • Document the rationale.
6. Prototype and Validate
   • Build a minimal viable product (MVP) or a proof of concept.
   • Gather metrics and user feedback.
7. Iterate and Scale
   • Use monitoring to guide adjustments.
   • Incrementally scale the solution as demands grow.
   • Revisit your decisions periodically to ensure they still make sense.
8. Reflect and Learn
   • Conduct postmortems after launches or incidents.
   • Archive lessons learned to inform future projects.

This process might seem straightforward in theory, but the complexity arises when real-world constraints come into play. That’s exactly why you have to remain flexible and prepared to adapt.

9. Case Studies: Lessons from the Field

Let’s examine a couple of hypothetical (but very relatable) case studies to see these steps in action.

9.1. High-Growth E-Commerce Platform

Scenario: A small startup built a monolithic e-commerce platform that grew from 10,000 users to 1 million in under a year.

• Trade-Offs Faced:
  1. Performance vs. Simplicity: The monolith started to buckle under load, but rewriting the entire system into microservices felt overwhelming.
  2. Time-to-Market vs. Reliability: Urgent business demands required new features to stay competitive, risking system stability.
• Actions Taken:
  1. They performed a quick risk assessment and identified the most critical bottlenecks (the checkout process and inventory system).
  2. They decided to carve out just those two services from the monolith into microservices.
  3. They established clear metrics (e.g., 99.95% uptime for the checkout service).
  4. After successful pilots, they systematically migrated other high-impact areas.
• Outcome:
  This partial migration balanced the need for better scalability with the practicality of limited developer resources. Performance bottlenecks improved significantly without rewriting everything from scratch. Over time, they continued to migrate more pieces as resources allowed.

9.2. Healthcare Data System

Scenario: A hospital network implemented a new system for electronic medical records (EMRs).

• Trade-Offs Faced:
  1. Security vs. Usability: They needed airtight security (due to HIPAA regulations), but doctors and nurses needed fast, intuitive access to patient data.
  2. Reliability vs. Innovation: A downtime in the EMR system could literally be life-threatening, so changes had to be carefully controlled.
• Actions Taken:
  1. They used risk-based authentication: routine checks (like looking up a patient chart) required basic authentication, but high-risk actions (e.g., prescribing narcotics) required multi-factor authentication.
  2. They implemented a pilot program in one department to test new features before hospital-wide rollout.
  3. They invested heavily in redundant infrastructure (multiple data centers, backups) to minimize downtime.
• Outcome:
  The hospital balanced security requirements with a workflow that didn’t overburden clinical staff. While not perfect, they gradually introduced new features without compromising patient care.

Conclusion: Keep Learning, Keep Balancing

Complex system trade-offs require ongoing attention, a willingness to adapt, and a continuous learning mindset.

And remember, trade-offs aren’t “once and done”: as your application grows, user needs shift, and new technologies emerge, it’s wise to revisit your earlier decisions to see if they still make sense.

In the end, pro-level system design is about combining solid technical knowledge with a clear view of your project’s goals.

If you can explain why you chose a certain approach and how it supports your key objectives, you’re already thinking like a seasoned architect. Keep learning, testing, and iterating, and you’ll stay ahead in the ever-evolving world of complex system design.

Related Questions

• What are the tradeoffs in system design interview?

• How to master trade-off discussions in system design scenarios?

• How to undertand design tradeoffs in system design interviews?

• What are the strategies for answering design trade-off questions?

• How to discuss trade-offs in data replication and redundancy?

• What are master-level strategies for handling complex system design trade-offs?

• How to optimize trade-off communication when defending design decisions?

• What is Polling vs Long-Polling vs Webhooks?

• What is Batch Processing vs Stream Processing?

• When to use SQL vs NoSQL system design interview?