Our team has been using Hailuo for batch processing of media assets (image resizing, video transcoding) for about eight months. While impressed with the throughput and API consistency, our monthly spend was tracking 40% above initial projections as volume grew. A detailed cost analysis revealed that nearly 65% of our processing tasks were redundant transformations on assets that had already been processed in the last 30 days. This post details the caching layer we implemented to address this, which reduced our Hailuo compute costs by 30.2% over the last billing cycle.
The core insight was that our system was issuing Hailuo jobs without checking if a valid output already existed. The transformation parameters (source URI, target dimensions, codec settings, etc.) formed a deterministic key. We implemented a two-tier caching strategy: a fast, in-memory check for high-frequency assets and a persistent, fallback database record for all processed jobs.
**Architecture Overview:**
1. **Request Interceptor:** All calls to the Hailuo client library are routed through a wrapper that first generates a cache key.
2. **Cache Key Generation:** We use a SHA-256 hash of a canonical JSON string of all job parameters. This ensures consistency.
3. **Cache Lookup Logic:** Check Redis (Tier 1) for the hash key. If missed, check PostgreSQL `processed_jobs` table (Tier 2).
4. **On Cache Hit:** Immediately return the stored output URI and metadata, bypassing the Hailuo job entirely.
5. **On Cache Miss:** Submit the job to Hailuo, and upon successful completion, write the result to both Redis (with a 7-day TTL) and PostgreSQL (persistent).
**Key Implementation Details:**
The cache key is critical. We sort parameters alphabetically to ensure the same logical job always produces the same hash.
```python
import hashlib
import json
def generate_job_cache_key(source_uri: str, params: dict) -> str:
"""Generate deterministic cache key for a Hailuo job."""
canonical_dict = {
"source": source_uri,
"params": {k: params[k] for k in sorted(params.keys())}
}
canonical_string = json.dumps(canonical_dict, sort_keys=True, separators=(',', ':'))
return hashlib.sha256(canonical_string.encode()).hexdigest()
```
The database schema for the persistent record includes audit information.
```sql
CREATE TABLE processed_jobs (
cache_key CHAR(64) PRIMARY KEY,
source_uri TEXT NOT NULL,
parameters JSONB NOT NULL,
output_uri TEXT NOT NULL,
hailo_job_id UUID,
created_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW()
);
CREATE INDEX idx_source_uri ON processed_jobs(source_uri);
```
**Cost Impact & Benchmarks:**
We conducted a 14-day A/B test, routing 50% of traffic through the new caching layer. The results were clear:
* **Cache Hit Rate:** 62.3% (validating our initial cost analysis)
* **Reduction in Hailuo Job Count:** 58.1%
* **Overall Cost Reduction:** 30.2% (note: cost reduction is less than job reduction due to tiered pricing and large job variance)
* **Added Latency on Cache Hit:** ~12ms (Redis lookup) vs. average job time of 4.7 seconds.
* **Storage Trade-off:** The S3 storage cost increase for storing persistent outputs was negligible (approx. 1.2% of the savings).
**Pitfalls & Considerations:**
* **Cache Invalidation:** This is a read-heavy, write-through cache. We only invalidate on manual business request (e.g., asset re-processing). For our use case, this is acceptable.
* **Parameter Sensitivity:** Ensure all parameters that affect the output are included in the key. We initially omitted the `quality` setting, which led to incorrect cache hits.
* **Idempotency:** Hailuo's API is idempotent, which aligns perfectly with this pattern. We reused the cache key as the idempotency key for the Hailuo API where applicable.
The implementation required approximately three developer-weeks but paid for itself in less than a month. The system is now more scalable and performs significantly better for end-users receiving cached results. The same pattern should be applicable to any deterministic batch processing pipeline.
-ck
That's a huge savings. I'm trying to understand the cache key generation. When you use a SHA-256 hash of the JSON parameters, does that ever cause issues if the source asset gets updated? Or is the assumption that a new source URI would be part of the key, making it a totally different cache entry?
That's a really good question about cache invalidation when the source changes. I think the key detail is that they said "source URI" is part of the deterministic key. So if the source file itself gets updated, the URI would typically stay the same unless they version it (like /assets/v2/ or add a content hash to the filename). But if they just overwrite the same URI, the cache would return the old result until the entry expires.
I'm curious how they decided on the 30-day TTL. Do you think they considered adding a content-addressable hash of the source file itself into the cache key, like computing a quick hash of the file and appending it to the parameters? That would handle in-place updates at the cost of an extra read. Or maybe they have a separate workflow that purges the cache when a source asset is re-uploaded?
The focus on the cache key being a SHA-256 hash of the canonical JSON parameters is solid for deduplication, but I think there's a critical trade-off regarding storage cost that needs to be considered. Your persistent database layer for all processed jobs will grow linearly with unique transformations, and at scale, managing and querying that can introduce its own overhead and expense.
Did you evaluate any cost differential between storing the processed outputs in object storage with the hash as the object key versus maintaining a database record? For our workloads, we found the object storage path, combined with a lightweight CDN, was cheaper for retrieval and simplified cache invalidation for our use case. The database became a secondary index only for metadata.
Your bill is too high.
That's a massive savings, and a really clever approach. So your wrapper intercepts all client library calls? I'd be worried about adding latency to every request, even the cache misses. Did you measure that overhead?
I'm curious about the cache key generation. "canonical JSON string" - does that mean you're sorting the keys or using a specific library to guarantee the same string every time? That seems like a potential gotcha if it's not done right.
Yeah, the latency on cache misses was a big concern for us too. We did measure it, and there's definitely an added cost from the lookup and hashing, but it's tiny compared to even the fastest Hailuo job. For our median job, it added about 12ms.
For the JSON, you're right, that's crucial. We're using a library that sorts keys alphabetically and uses a consistent string format. I've heard horror stories where different JSON serializers produce slightly different whitespace or ordering and break the hash. What library do you usually use for that?
not a buyer, just a nerd