Design Ride Sharing System

Ride hailing inspired by Uber's published designs: driver pings into an in-memory H3 geo index, ETA-ranked dispatch with sequential offers and atomic assignment, per-cell surge pricing from the location stream, trip events for notifications and payments, and per-trip GPS history. A teaching design.

Functional requirements

  • Riders can request a ride by specifying pickup and drop-off locations.
  • The system matches a rider to the nearest available driver within 30 seconds.
  • Drivers receive ride requests with rider details and can accept or decline.
  • Riders and drivers can track each other's real-time location on a map.
  • Trip fare is calculated dynamically based on distance, time, and surge pricing.
  • Riders and drivers receive push notifications at key trip milestones.
  • Riders can rate drivers and drivers can rate riders after each completed trip.
  • Riders can view their trip history, receipts, and re-request past routes.
  • Drivers can toggle availability and view their earnings dashboard.
  • The system supports scheduled rides booked up to 7 days in advance.

Non-functional requirements

  • Availability: 99.99% uptime; matching service must tolerate zone-level failures.
  • Latency: driver-match response under 3 seconds for 95% of requests; location updates ingested under 500 ms.
  • Scalability: support 10 million concurrent trips and 5 million active drivers globally.
  • Throughput: ingest 500,000 driver location updates per second at peak.
  • Geo-distribution: region-local matching clusters to minimise cross-region latency.
  • Consistency: trip state machine (requested → matched → en route → completed) must be strongly consistent.
  • Durability: all trip records and payment events persisted with zero data loss.
  • Performance: surge-price recalculation refreshed every 30 seconds per geohash zone.
  • Security: driver background-check status verified before any match; rider PII encrypted at rest.
  • Observability: per-city ETA accuracy, match rate, and cancellation rate surfaced in real-time dashboards.

How the design evolves

Stage 1: Driver Locations as Database Rows

See why writing every GPS ping to a database and matching with SQL falls over.

What was missing: Nothing yet.

Why that's risky: Drivers' pings (80K per second) overwhelm row updates, distance queries scan every driver, and two requests can grab the same driver.

What gets added: One server that stores each driver's latest location as a row and finds the nearest driver with a SQL distance query.

Trade-offs: Simple, but locations change far faster than a database row should.

Stage 2: Driver Locations in an In-Memory Geo Index

Absorb GPS pings in memory and find nearby drivers by cell.

What was missing: Pings were database writes and matching was a table scan.

Why that's risky: The nearest driver by straight line may be across a river, and drivers can't decline.

What gets added: A location service that keeps every online driver in an in-memory index of hexagonal H3 cells, sharded by city, and a trip service that picks the nearest available driver from nearby cells; assigning a driver is a conditional update in the trip database.

Trade-offs: The index holds only the latest position, so a restart loses positions for a few seconds until the next pings.

Stage 3: Dispatch with ETA Ranking and Offers

Pick the driver who can actually arrive soonest, and let drivers accept.

What was missing: Matching used straight-line distance and assumed drivers would accept.

Why that's risky: Prices ignore demand, so at rush hour requests pile up with no drivers.

What gets added: A dispatch service that ranks nearby available drivers by ETA on the road graph with live speeds, offers the ride to one driver at a time through a push channel with a 15-second timeout, and assigns atomically on accept; the trip service owns the trip's state machine.

Trade-offs: Offering sequentially takes longer than broadcasting but never makes two drivers race for one ride.

Stage 4: Pricing and Surge

Quote fares and balance supply and demand per neighbourhood.

What was missing: No fare quotes and no response to demand.

Why that's risky: Riders and drivers aren't notified of changes, and nobody is charged.

What gets added: A pricing service that quotes fares with the surge multiplier for the pickup cell, and a surge calculator that compares open requests with available drivers per cell every minute, fed by the location stream.

Trade-offs: Surge is per cell and per minute, so prices can differ across a street; smoothing limits sudden jumps.

Stage 5: Trip Events, Notifications and Payments

Keep riders informed and charge correctly when the trip ends.

What was missing: No notifications and no payment.

Why that's risky: GPS traces aren't kept, so fare disputes and safety reviews have nothing to go on, and abuse isn't limited.

What gets added: A trip event stream feeding a notification worker (driver assigned, arriving, started, receipt) and a payment worker that charges the rider and records driver earnings when the trip completes.

Trade-offs: Charging after the trip means a small risk of failed payments, handled by retries and account holds.

Stage 6: Location History, Limits and Monitoring

Keep trip traces, block abuse, and watch matching quality.

What was missing: No trace history, no rate limits, no monitoring.

Why that's risky: Remaining risk is regional: each city's dispatch should fail over to another data centre.

What gets added: A location history writer storing GPS traces per trip, a rate limiter, and monitoring of time to match, offer acceptance, ETA error and ping lag.

Trade-offs: Traces are kept for a limited time for privacy.

Frequently asked questions

How do you handle eventual consistency in driver locations?

Use soft-state location caches with TTLs and tolerate small staleness while updating positions frequently.

How do you manage backpressure during surge events?

Apply rate limiting at the gateway and buffer non-critical events through queues with autoscaling workers.

What sharding strategy suits trip data?

Shard by city or region to keep hot ride data local and reduce cross-region latency.

Why separate matching from the API gateway early?

Matching is latency-sensitive and benefits from isolated scaling and caching.

How does the geo cache improve matching latency?

Caching nearby drivers reduces repeated database lookups for real-time location reads.

Why add an event stream for ride lifecycle updates?

Event streams decouple real-time ride actions from downstream analytics and notifications.

PRISM
System Design Interview
Round 1 of 4 · Architecture Design · 60:00 remaining
PRISM logo PRISM logo
Problems
AI Interview
Interview Challenges
Build & Stress Test NEW
System Architectures
Design & Fix NEW
Interactive Roadmap
System Design Guides Interview Prep Guide
Problems
Today's mission
Notifications
    Theme
    Pricing Community NEW Send feedback Report a problem NEW
    Sign in
    Theme
    Community NEW Send feedback Report a problem NEW
    All problems
    Phase
    Build & Stress Test
    Phase 01: Thinking in Systems
    Upcoming

    Components

    User
    CDN
    Load Balancer
    Server
    Cache
    Database
    Blob Storage
    Search Index
    Queue
    Worker
    Rate Limiter
    Service
    API Gateway
    Reverse Proxy
    WebSocket Server
    Third-party API

    Inspector

    Notes
    Use clear names so your design intent is easy to understand.
    Good
    Name by business meaning
    "Order API", "Restaurant Service"
    Avoid
    Generic names = zero signal
    "Server 1", "API", "Queue"
    A short description for each component makes feedback much better.
    100%
    Start by identifying:
    • Users & entry points
    • APIs & services
    • Databases & storage
    • Traffic flow & scale

    Round 1 of 4 Architecture Design

    Run a simulation to see results.

    Time Remaining
    60:00
    System Design Interview

    What are the core functional requirements?
    What are the key non-functional constraints?

    Questions

    Start Evaluation to unlock questions.

    EVALUATE MODE

    Test yourself like it's the real thing.

    A structured 4-module evaluation that mirrors how top companies assess system design candidates.

    Architecture Design
    Draw your system on the canvas. Define components, connections, and data flow.
    FR & NFR Requirements
    Answer functional and non-functional requirement questions about your design.
    MCQ Round
    Multiple choice questions testing your depth on the chosen system.
    Tradeoff Analysis
    Justify your design decisions and defend your architectural tradeoffs.
    AI Report Generated
    Choose a Problem
    No problem selected
    • 30 min
    • 45 min
    • 60 min
    Round 2 of 4
    MCQ Round
    Answer multiple-choice questions based on your design.

    Exit Interview?

    You're in the middle of an interview session. Leaving now will end your current attempt.

    Your progress will be saved.

    Open a saved design

    Select a design to load into the canvas.

    My Evaluations

    Your past evaluation sessions

    Here’s a simple request flow that follows the expected layer order.

    External User
    →
    Edge CDN → API Gateway → Load Balancer
    →
    Compute App Servers / Services
    →
    DataAccess Cache
    →
    Storage Database / Search Index
    →
    Async Queue → Worker

    Tip: keep arrows moving forward through layers (Edge → Compute → Storage). Avoid sending storage back to compute.

    Evaluation Instructions

    Read the rules carefully before starting. The test auto-submits on refresh.

    Before you start

    • Build your architecture on the canvas. The timer starts when you click Start Evaluation.
    • Don't forget to answer Functional Requirement and Non Functional Requirements.
    • When satisfied with your design, click Next to lock it and view the questions.
    • Please answer final step questions to complete the evaluation.

    Dos

    • Do read each question carefully before answering.
    • Do include required components to maximize component coverage.
    • Do save a copy of your design if you want to keep it before submission.

    Don'ts

    • Don't refresh or close the tab during an active evaluation — this will auto-submit your answers.
    • Don't switch app modes or open another tab while the evaluation is running.
    • Don't attempt to edit the design after clicking Next; the workspace will be locked.

    All the best!!

    Confirm

    Input

    Notice

    Evaluation Report
    Report a problem

    Evaluation Complete

    Generating Your Report

    Hang tight — our AI is evaluating your design…

    Did you know?

    Loading…

    Share feedback

    Tell us what worked well and what we can improve.

    Let's personalize this

    Answer a couple of quick questions so we can tailor your journey and missions.

    Your welcome gift: of Full PRISM Access

    Your Pro access starts as soon as you press Start my journey.

    SYSTEM BRIEF

    System Constraints

    What the system must do — every item is a user-facing behaviour your architecture must support.

      ↑ Engineering Constraints

      These are the failure modes you must design against — latency SLAs, durability targets, traffic ceilings.

        ⇆ Architecture Constraints

        Core Concepts to Master

        Your Journey
        PHASE – –
        0 / 0 0%
        0
        Mock Interview Checklist

        Pick a topic to start

        Explore concept overviews, real-system examples, key tradeoffs, and interview talking points for each roadmap section.

        Phase Mastered

        You've conquered this phase. These are the skills you now own:

          +500 XP

          Company Interview Paths

          Progress Summary