5paisa Capital Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at 5paisa Capital, you are at the intersection of high-frequency financial services and robust technical architecture. You would build, maintain, and scale the platforms 5paisa Capital users rely on to trade, invest, and manage their wealth with speed and precision. The role's work affects the reliability of 5paisa Capital's trading engines and the user experience of its interface.

The loop does not sample the job evenly, and arguing about that in the room costs you. Daily work is mostly incremental change inside code someone else wrote, while the loop samples narrow slices of it; prepare for the slices and save the realism argument for your questions at the end.

Focus areas

• Evolve APIs without breaking pinned SDK clients
• Scope every query and cache key by tenant
• Bound blast radius with per-tenant concurrency limits

Overview

This role is critical to maintaining 5paisa Capital’s competitive edge in the fintech market. You will contribute to a dynamic environment where technical stability and performance are paramount. Candidates report that interviewers look for engineers who are proficient in coding and eager to understand the business logic behind the financial products they support, so that the company's infrastructure stays resilient under heavy market demand.

The 5paisa Capital interview process

5paisa Capital candidates report 3 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Technical Evaluations

What this round decides is narrow: whether you can produce code that runs and is correct on inputs nobody showed you. An elegant solution that does not compile scores below a plain one that does, so write a correct brute force first, say out loud that you know its cost, and improve it with the working version still on screen. What separates strong answers is who finds the broken case. Trace your own code against an empty input, a single element, and duplicate keys before you say you are finished, because being told is far more expensive than noticing.

What to demonstrate

• Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
• Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
• Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly

How to prepare

• Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
• Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
• Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live

Project Discussion

When a round has no standard shape, it is often there because something is still open: an area no earlier conversation reached, a round where the signal came out mixed, or a decision someone is not ready to make alone. Work out which by going back over what each earlier round actually covered rather than how it felt, and arrive able to give evidence on that point without being asked twice. Weak answers replay the loop's earlier material at the same depth. Strong ones go a level deeper and stay consistent with what you already said.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your account of a project matches the one you gave earlier in the loop, since what you said before may be available to whoever runs this round
• Whether you can go a level deeper on something already covered, reaching the decision and its alternatives rather than repeating the summary
• Whether you state your own uncertainty accurately, including parts of a system you did not build and decisions you inherited, instead of claiming even ownership across all of it
• Whether you can answer a question you handled poorly earlier by naming what you missed, rather than delivering a polished second version as if the first had not happened

How to prepare

• Reconstruct the loop on one page: for each round, the questions you were asked and the answer you actually gave, not the better one you thought of afterwards. The gaps on that page are your best available guess at why this round exists.
• Take the two claims you made earlier that carry the most weight and assemble the backing for each: the measurement, the date, what broke, the decision you would make differently now.
• Write down the three facts about your work that must not drift between tellings, such as team size, timeline and your own role, and check your stories against that list rather than trusting recall under pressure

Final HR Conversation

Where the day includes a partner from product, design or data, that conversation is weighted like the technical ones and prepared for least. They are deciding one thing: whether having you in the room makes their decisions cheaper. That means options with costs attached, not implementation detail and not "it depends". An estimate someone can plan against — a range, the assumption that would push it to the high end, and what you would drop to hit the low one — is worth more than a confident single number, which everyone present already knows is wrong.

What to demonstrate

• Whether an estimate comes as a range with the assumption most likely to break it, and states what a specific scope cut would actually buy
• Whether a technical constraint is handed over as a choice with consequences on their side, rather than as a verdict they have no standing to argue with
• Whether you establish what decision is on the table before proposing anything
• Whether risk is raised while it can still change the plan, with the trigger that would confirm it, instead of reported afterwards as a slip

How to prepare

• Take a project that shipped late and write the two-sentence warning you could have given three weeks earlier, naming what you would have needed decided at that point
• Rehearse one estimate out loud until it arrives in three parts: the range, the single assumption that would blow it, and the smallest thing you would cut to protect the date
• Rewrite an objection you have actually made — the "we can't do that" version — as two options with their costs, so the choice ends up with the person who owns it

Where candidates lose points

Serialising a tenant's writes through select ... for update on a single counter row

It is the first change that makes a counter correct, and it caps that tenant's write throughput at roughly one divided by the lock hold time. A transaction that takes the lock, makes a network call and then commits holds it for the entire round trip: at 2 ms that is about 500 writes per second for the whole tenant, and the largest tenants are exactly the ones that exceed it. The damage then spreads, because every waiter holds a database connection while it queues, so one hot tenant drains the shared pool and the symptom presents as a site-wide latency incident rather than as a lock problem. The repairs are to shrink the critical section to a single statement, to shard the counter into per-(tenant, hour) or per-(tenant, bucket) rows and sum on read, or to batch in memory and flush periodically while accepting the bounded loss that batching implies.

One shared connection pool for every tenant and every query class

A single tenant with a large table and a missing index can occupy every connection with slow queries, and every other tenant then waits in connection acquisition -- a queue invisible in database metrics, because the database itself looks healthy while the application starves. Containment is bulkheads: separate pools or per-tenant concurrency caps for interactive requests, background jobs and exports, a statement timeout low enough that a pathological query dies before it accumulates, and an idle-in-transaction timeout so a stuck client cannot pin a connection and its locks indefinitely. One caveat worth knowing in advance: if a transaction-pooling proxy sits in front of the database, session-scoped behaviour changes, so session-level advisory locks and settings applied outside a transaction do not survive the way they do on a direct connection.

Listing technologies instead of trade-offs

Name the property the design needs first, such as ordered range scans, multi-entity transactions, cheap appends, or a predictable p99, then pick something that provides it and say what it gives up in exchange. Almost any component is defensible once you state the requirement it satisfies and the one it sacrifices.

Answering a debugging question with a guess instead of a bisection

Give a procedure that halves the search space at each step: confirm the symptom reproduces, establish the last known-good version, input or timestamp, then bisect over commits, over the data, or over the layers of the request path. A plausible cause with no way to confirm it is the same move whether it happens to be right or wrong, which is why it scores nothing.

Questions & practice

Fold a deduplicated usage stream into hourly rollups

Easy · aggregation · deduplication · watermarks · exact-arithmetic

You are given one day of usage_event rows, up to 250 million, each carrying event_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, environment, sku, quantity numeric(20,6), idempotency_key, occurred_at and ingested_at. Produce usage_rollup_hourly cells keyed (tenant_id, workspace_id, sku, hour_start) with quantity_sum, event_count and source_max_ingested_at. An event counts once per (tenant_id, idempotency_key). The rollup grain has no environment column, so state your filter. One pass. Give your time and space bounds, and say what the deduplication actually costs in memory.

Approach

1. Bucket on occurred_at, never ingested_at: hour_start = date_trunc('hour', occurred_at at time zone 'UTC'). The two columns answer different questions. occurred_at says which hour the customer is billed for; ingested_at says how current the fold is. Using the second for the first makes late data invisible instead of correctable.
2. The fold is trivial and the deduplication is the entire cost, so price it before designing anything clever. An exact set over (tenant_id, idempotency_key) at 250M entries, stored as a 16-byte 128-bit hash in an open-addressed table at 0.7 load factor, needs about 357M slots at 16 bytes each, roughly 5.7 GB. The fix is partitioning by hash(tenant_id) % P so each shard holds 1/P of the set and no tenant's keys straddle shards.
3. Rule out a Bloom filter as a replacement, in the right direction: a false positive reports 'already seen' for an event never seen, so you drop a real event and lose revenue with no error raised. It is usable only as a negative pre-filter in front of the exact set, where a miss is conclusive and a hit must fall through to the real lookup.
4. Accumulate in scaled integers, not binary floating point. numeric(20,6) admits values below 10^14, so one event scaled to micro-units can reach 10^20, past int64's 9.22 x 10^18; use a 128-bit or arbitrary-precision accumulator unless you first bound the per-event maximum. binary64 represents integers exactly only to 2^53, about 9.01 x 10^15, and cannot represent 0.1 at all, so two runs that sum in different orders disagree.
5. Carry source_max_ingested_at = max(ingested_at) over the events folded into each cell, and count event_count over accepted, post-dedup events. Without that watermark there is no way to prove later what a number did and did not include, which is the first question any reconciliation asks.
6. State the environment filter explicitly, because the rollup grain cannot record it. A fold that quietly includes staging bills non-production traffic; one that quietly excludes it loses a cost signal. Production-only is the billing answer, and either way it belongs in the job name and the output metadata. Complexity: O(n) time, O(distinct dedup keys) space, dominated by the dedup set rather than by the cells.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Write both key tuples down before any code: dedup key (tenant_id, idempotency_key), cell key (tenant_id, workspace_id, sku, hour_start), with hour_start derived from occurred_at in UTC.
2. Build a 10,000-row fixture containing one event duplicated three times under the same idempotency_key, two events sharing an idempotency_key across different tenant_id values, one event whose occurred_at is two hours before its ingested_at, and one staging event inside an otherwise production cell.
3. Fold it and assert each of those four expectations separately rather than eyeballing a grand total.
4. Re-run with the input shuffled and diff the output files.
5. Size the dedup set for 250M keys using the load-factor arithmetic and write the number down next to the fixture.

Expected result: The triplicate contributes one event and its quantity once. The two same-key, different-tenant events both count, because the dedup key is the pair. The late event lands in the hour of its occurred_at while that cell's source_max_ingested_at advances to the later timestamp. The staging event is included or excluded per the stated filter and never silently.

Verify it yourself

• Shuffled input produces byte-identical cells, including event_count and source_max_ingested_at.
• The sum of quantity_sum across all cells equals the sum of quantity over the distinct dedup keys, computed independently.
• Swapping the accumulator to binary64 makes a fixture of 0.1-valued quantities disagree with the exact sum. That is a failing test, not a rounding note.

Follow-up

• A producer retries at 23:59:59 and the retry lands at 00:00:01. The unique index on the daily-partitioned table must include the partition key. What gets double-counted, and what is the smallest change that fixes it?
• The consumer acknowledges its batch before committing the fold. Which failure loses revenue now, and which arrangement duplicates instead?
• What makes a re-run over the same day produce byte-identical rollups?

Locate a billing reconciliation gap without rescanning ninety million events

Hard · reconciliation · dimensional-bisection · watermarks · hypothesis-testing

A tenant's sealed invoice total is 0.4% below the sum of its raw usage_event rows for the period. That tenant has 90 million events over 30 days in a table partitioned daily on ingested_at, and its rollups carry source_max_ingested_at, revision and sealed_at. Recomputing all 30 days from raw is correct, and you are not going to do it. Give the procedure that locates the divergent (workspace, sku, hour) cell, the cost of each probe, and the one query you run before any of it.

Approach

1. Run the free query first. Sum raw quantity for the period restricted to ingested_at <= source_max_ingested_at of the sealed rollups, and compare that against the unrestricted sum. The rollup stores the watermark precisely so this can be answered without a scan. If the whole 0.4% sits above the watermark, nothing is broken: it is late data, it becomes an adjustment line, and the investigation ends in one query.
2. Only if the gap survives that test do you bisect, and you bisect by dimension rather than by rows. Compare 30 per-day totals, then inside the offending day compare the 6 SKUs, then the workspaces, then the 24 hours. That is roughly 30 + 6 + W + 24 grouped probes, each an indexed range scan over one daily partition for one tenant, against O(N) per attempt for the naive re-fold.
3. Quantify why naive is not merely slow but unusable mid-incident: at a generous 200,000 rows/second sequential, 90 million rows is about 7.5 minutes per attempt, you will want ten attempts, and every one competes for I/O on the same partitions live ingest is writing. The diagnostic worsens the backlog it is diagnosing.
4. Before fetching each comparison, state what it would look like under each hypothesis. Two adjacent hours off by equal and opposite amounts is occurred_at versus ingested_at bucketing. A whole day offset by exactly N hours is a timezone applied at the wrong layer. A gap confined to one SKU in one workspace is an environment filter. The same (tenant_id, idempotency_key) present in two ingested_day partitions is the dedup horizon losing a retry that crossed midnight.
5. Make the next bisection cheap by storing the aggregate you keep recomputing. A per-(tenant_id, ingested_day) count and quantity checksum turns step two from thirty probes into one read, and it is the same number the reconciliation job already produces.
6. Whatever you find, the sealed period does not change value. The correction is an adjustment line pointing at the line it reverses, carrying its own source_rollup_watermark, because the original invoice is the evidence of what the customer was charged.

Follow-up

• The gap is 0.4% in one direction on one day and 0.4% the other way the next day. What does that shape rule in, and what does it rule out?
• How do you distinguish a duplicate from a restatement, given revision and recomputed_at on the rollup?
• Ingest is still running while you investigate. What makes your two numbers comparable at all?

Parse and verify a timestamped multi-signature webhook header

Easy · parsing · hmac · constant-time-compare · replay-protection

An inbound webhook carries a signature header of at most 1 KiB shaped t=<unix seconds>,v1=<64 hex chars>, with up to five v1 values during secret rotation and possibly unknown scheme keys. You hold the raw request body bytes and the currently active signing secrets. Write the parser and the verifier: accept when any active secret reproduces a signature and the timestamp is within a five-minute tolerance in either direction, reject otherwise. Single left-to-right pass over the header, no regular expression. State what is inside the MAC and why.

Approach

1. Parse in one scan: split on ,, then on the first = only, since a value may itself contain = under a future scheme. Accept t exactly once and treat a second t as a reject rather than last-wins. Push every v1 onto a short list and ignore any other key, so a v2 can be introduced later without breaking this verifier.
2. Say what is signed: HMAC-SHA256 over the exact byte string <t>.<raw body bytes>, yielding 32 bytes or 64 hex characters. The timestamp sits inside the MAC because otherwise an attacker replays yesterday's body with its still-valid signature and only has to edit the header timestamp.
3. Hash the bytes as received. Verifying against a re-serialised JSON body is the usual defect: key order, whitespace and number formatting all change the bytes while the parsed objects compare equal, so signatures fail for honest senders and the popular 'fix' is to stop checking.
4. Compare in constant time over fixed-length digests. Decode the hex to 32 bytes, accumulate acc |= a[i] ^ b[i] across the whole length, and test acc == 0 at the end. Evaluate every candidate without an early exit; at five candidates that is five HMACs over the body, linear in body size and negligible beside the network.
5. Apply the tolerance as a two-sided bound, rejecting when |now - t| > 300 seconds. A sender whose clock runs ahead of yours is an ordinary case, and an unbounded future timestamp is a free replay window.
6. Complexity: O(L) over the header producing k candidates, plus k HMACs at O(|body|) each. Space is O(k) beyond the body itself. Do the cheap rejections, including the tolerance check, before any cryptography runs.

Follow-up

• The body is 40 MB. What changes about where you verify, and what can you do before the whole body has arrived?
• A customer reports that signatures fail for exactly the requests whose body contains a non-ASCII character. What is your first hypothesis?
• How do you rotate the signing secret with no failed deliveries, and how long do both secrets stay live?

Explain why the metering dashboard scans every daily partition

Medium · indexing · partition pruning · sargability · tenant skew

usage_event is range-partitioned daily on ingested_at and holds tenant_id, workspace_id, environment, sku, quantity numeric(20,6), occurred_at and ingested_at. The only relevant index is on (occurred_at). A dashboard runs select sku, sum(quantity) from usage_event where tenant_id = $1 and date_trunc('hour', occurred_at) >= $2 and environment = 'production' group by sku, and EXPLAIN shows a sequential scan of every partition. Give each distinct reason, rewrite the predicate so an index can serve it, propose the index, and state the write cost its column order adds.

Approach

1. Separate the three causes rather than blaming one. First, date_trunc('hour', occurred_at) wraps the column, so the predicate is not sargable against a btree on the bare column. Second, pruning keys off ingested_at while the query constrains occurred_at, so no partition can be excluded. Third, even made sargable, (occurred_at) is not tenant-leading, so for one tenant among thousands the scan reads the whole time range and discards nearly all of it.
2. Rewrite the bound carefully, because the obvious rewrite is only conditionally equivalent. date_trunc('hour', x) >= $2 equals x >= $2 only when $2 is already hour-aligned; for an arbitrary $2 it means x >= date_trunc('hour', $2) + interval '1 hour'. Normalise the parameter in the caller and leave the column bare.
3. Restore pruning with a second, redundant predicate on the partition key: ingested_at >= $2 - interval '<late-data horizon>'. State both sides of it. It prunes to a handful of partitions, and it silently omits any event whose ingest lagged past that horizon, which is precisely what a producer replay produces. Either document the horizon as a stated bound, or partition on occurred_at and move the problem into the dedup window instead.
4. Propose (tenant_id, occurred_at) include (sku, quantity) per partition. A partial index where environment = 'production' mostly saves size rather than selectivity, since production dominates the three environments; take it if non-production is a meaningful share and skip it otherwise.
5. Price the write path honestly. At roughly 250M rows/day each extra index is another insert plus WAL per row, and a tenant-leading key scatters inserts across one hot leaf per active tenant instead of appending to a single rightmost leaf, so page dirtying and random I/O both rise. An INCLUDE payload widens every leaf entry and enlarges the index accordingly.
6. Add the index-only-scan caveat before someone reports it as a regression: on a freshly appended table the visibility map is not yet set for recent pages, so the INCLUDE columns still cost heap fetches until autovacuum has been through, and the newest hour is exactly the data the dashboard reads.

Worked solution (30 min)

1. Build 30 daily partitions with skewed tenants, one holding about 40% of the rows, then ANALYZE.
2. Run explain (analyze, buffers) on the original query and record how many partitions were scanned and the rows removed by filter.
3. Apply the rewritten predicate and the index, re-run, and confirm the plan lists only the partitions inside the ingested_at bound.
4. Re-run with $2 set to a non-hour-aligned timestamp and confirm the rewritten and original predicates return identical rows.
5. Insert an event with ingested_at six hours past occurred_at and check whether the pruning predicate excludes it.

Expected result: Three causes named separately: a non-sargable date_trunc, pruning on ingested_at against a predicate on occurred_at, and a non-tenant-leading index. A rewrite to occurred_at >= <hour-normalised $2> plus a redundant ingested_at >= $2 - horizon, an index on (tenant_id, occurred_at) including sku and quantity, a per-row write cost stated, and the late-data omission the pruning predicate introduces stated as a known bound.

Verify it yourself

• The plan lists only partitions inside the ingested_at bound.
• Rows removed by filter on the index scan is small relative to rows returned.
• The rewritten and original predicates agree for both hour-aligned and non-aligned bounds.
• A deliberately late-ingested event is visible or omitted exactly as the stated horizon predicts.

Follow-up

• CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY is not supported on a partitioned parent. Give the sequence that gets this index onto 400 existing partitions without blocking ingest.
• One tenant holds 200 times the median row count and the dashboard still times out for them with the index in place. What changes?
• Should this read hit usage_rollup_hourly instead? State what that costs in freshness and what the watermark lets you promise.

Rebuild an hourly rollup with deduplication and late-arrival accounting

Hard · window functions · deduplication · event time vs ingest time · watermarks

From usage_event (event_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, environment, sku, quantity numeric(20,6), idempotency_key, occurred_at, ingested_at), produce the values usage_rollup_hourly should hold for one tenant over one day: per (workspace_id, sku, hour_start) the deduplicated quantity_sum, event_count and source_max_ingested_at, bucketed by occurred_at. Duplicates share (tenant_id, idempotency_key). Also report, per hour, the running total across the day and the share of quantity that arrived more than two hours after the hour began. Write the query, and state which duplicates a daily unique index cannot catch.

Approach

1. Deduplicate in its own CTE before any aggregation, because a SUM cannot be un-summed: row_number() over (partition by tenant_id, idempotency_key order by ingested_at, event_id) = 1. Include the tiebreaker. Without it the surviving row is non-deterministic when two duplicates share an ingested_at, and a rollup described as deterministically recomputable then disagrees with itself between runs.
2. Bucket on occurred_at and nothing else, and pin the timezone explicitly. date_trunc('hour', timestamptz) truncates in the session's TimeZone setting, so the same query run by a session set to a non-UTC zone buckets differently; use the three-argument date_trunc('hour', occurred_at, 'UTC') on PostgreSQL 16 or later, or date_trunc('hour', occurred_at at time zone 'UTC') at time zone 'UTC' before that. Filter environment = 'production' explicitly, since metering covers three environments and billing covers one.
3. Aggregate to the grain with sum(quantity), count(*) and max(ingested_at). The last is not decoration: it is the watermark the row consumed up to, and without it there is no way to prove afterwards what a number did and did not include.
4. Compute the late share inside the dedup-and-aggregate step as a conditional aggregate, sum(quantity) filter (where ingested_at > hour_start + interval '2 hours'), then divide by the hour's total. Compute the running total as a window over the already aggregated rows: sum(quantity_sum) over (partition by workspace_id, sku order by hour_start rows between unbounded preceding and current row). Running either over raw rows puts the duplicates back.
5. Answer the index question exactly. The unique constraint is on (ingested_day, tenant_id, idempotency_key), because a unique index on a partitioned table must contain the partition key. It therefore deduplicates only within one ingest day and admits a duplicate whose retry crosses midnight or whose replay runs a week later. That is why this CTE dedups across the whole window being recomputed, and why the dedup horizon is a correctness parameter rather than a retention cost.
6. Keep the numeric type all the way through. quantity is numeric so the sums are exact; a cast to double precision anywhere in this pipeline reintroduces drift that surfaces only as a few unreconcilable cents per tenant per month, long after the query is out of anyone's mind.

Follow-up

• A dispute forces the same recompute over 40 days for one tenant. What changes about the dedup CTE's memory use and the chosen plan, and what would you do about it?
• Two runs a minute apart return different quantity_sum values for an hour that is already closed. Give two mechanisms that produce that, and the single query that distinguishes them.
• Express the same rollup incrementally so it does not re-scan the day each time the watermark advances. What does the incremental version stop being able to answer?

How do you manage component state in React.js?

Medium

Approach

1. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
2. Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
3. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.

Follow-up

• What assumption would you test first?
• How would you know your answer was wrong?

Can you explain the core principles of OOPs?

Medium

Approach

1. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
2. Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
3. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.

Follow-up

• How would you know your answer was wrong?
• What assumption would you test first?

What are the primary differences between.NET and.NET Core?

Medium

Approach

1. Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
2. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
3. Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

• How would you know your answer was wrong?
• What assumption would you test first?

Design a machine-readable error contract for the gateway

Easy · error taxonomy · retries · api contract

The edge gateway serves roughly 30k requests/second to SDKs and CI pipelines that retry automatically. Today every failure returns 500 with a prose message that clients string-match on. Design the error contract: the response body fields, and the status code for a malformed body, a revoked credential, a scope the credential lacks, a row belonging to another tenant, a reused idempotency key sent with a different body, an exceeded rate limit, and an unreachable dependency. For each, state whether the client may retry and on what schedule. Deliverable: the envelope schema plus the status-to-retry table.

Approach

1. Split the envelope by audience: a stable code string for programs, a message documented as human-only and free to change, a request_id that joins to gateway logs, and a details array for per-field problems. The code list is an enum that only ever grows.
2. Assign status by who has to change something: 400/422 for the caller's bytes, 401 for a credential that no longer authenticates, 403 for a scope or entitlement, 404 rather than 403 for a row in another tenant because 403 confirms the identifier exists, 409 for an idempotency conflict, 429 for a limit, 503 for a dependency.
3. Derive retryability from the method and the idempotency key rather than from the status: a 5xx or a timeout is an unknown outcome, not a failure, so GET/PUT/DELETE may be retried under HTTP semantics and POST only when it carries an idempotency key.
4. Put the schedule in the response: Retry-After on 429 and 503 overrides the client's own backoff; otherwise capped exponential backoff with full jitter, sleeping uniformly in [0, min(cap, base * 2^attempt)], bounded by a total attempt budget so retries expire before the caller's deadline.
5. Write the negative rules into the published contract: clients must never parse message, must tolerate unknown code values by falling back to the status class, and a code's meaning is never redefined once shipped.

Worked solution (20 min)

1. Write the envelope as a JSON schema with four top-level fields and say which are guaranteed present on every error.
2. Fill a seven-row table: condition, status, code string, retryable yes/no, and the schedule or the reason retrying cannot help.
3. For each non-retryable row, write the one thing the caller must change (bytes, credential, plan, key) so nothing is marked non-retryable without a remedy.
4. Add the unknown-outcome row for timeouts and 5xx separately from the other rows, and give it an action other than 'treat as failed'.
5. Write two sentences of client guidance: honour Retry-After when present, apply full jitter otherwise, and stop at the attempt budget.

Expected result: An envelope of { code, message, request_id, details[] } plus a table in which only 429 and 503 are unconditionally retryable, 5xx and timeouts are retryable only for idempotent methods or keyed POSTs, and every other row names a caller-side change.

Verify it yourself

• No row requires the client to read message to decide what to do.
• The cross-tenant row returns 404 and the justification mentions existence disclosure.
• Timeout appears as its own outcome, distinct from both success and failure.
• Retry-After is stated as authoritative over any client-side backoff calculation.

Follow-up

• A customer reports they retried a 500 from POST /v1/runs and ended up with two sandboxes billed. Whose bug is it, and what in your contract permits their reading?
• You need to add a new error code next quarter without a version bump. What did the v1 contract have to say for that to be non-breaking?

Invoice detail latency triples after an ORM relationship refactor

Easy · n+1 query · orm · latency regression

An invoice detail endpoint returned in 40 ms at p99 last week. After a refactor replaced a hand-written join with ORM relationship access it returns in 1.4 s, and the regression grows with the number of invoice_line_item rows on the invoice. Database CPU rose, but no statement in the slow-query log exceeds 3 ms. You have request traces with per-span SQL, the ORM statement log, and a staging copy of the data. Produce an ordered diagnostic checklist, the measurement that confirms the cause before any code change, and the fix.

Approach

1. Count statements per request before reading any statement duration. A slow-query log hides this class by construction, because every individual query is fast and only their number is wrong; take one trace and count SQL spans.
2. Establish proportionality rather than asserting it: sample invoices with 5, 20, 60 and 200 line items and plot statements per request against line count. A straight line of slope 1 through an intercept of one or two identifies a lazy relationship load, and no index or cache would move that line.
3. Locate the emitting attribute access in the refactored code and check whether the same shape repeats one level deeper, for instance a tax or adjustment collection hanging off each line, which turns the cost quadratic.
4. Fix with a bounded statement count: either one join that fetches invoice and lines together, or two statements where the second is WHERE invoice_id = $1 AND tenant_id = $2. Keep tenant_id in the predicate so the read stays tenant-scoped even though invoice_id already implies it.
5. Choose between the two deliberately: the join duplicates the wide parent row across N children on the wire, the two-statement form avoids that for one extra round trip. Prefer the join for narrow parents and the split for wide ones.
6. Pin it with a per-request statement-count assertion in a test that varies line count, because a latency assertion passes on a small fixture and would not have caught this.

Follow-up

• The endpoint now also needs per-line tax rows. Show the shape that keeps statement count constant instead of reintroducing the same defect one level down.
• How does this change if a transaction-pooling proxy sits between the service and the database, so each statement may land on a different backend session?
• The same page paginates invoices with LIMIT and OFFSET. Why is that a second, independent defect, and what replaces it?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone fluent in a dynamic language who has shipped real work but has never had to say what the runtime is doing underneath. The week is built on measuring and deliberately breaking things, because the questions that expose this background are the ones where the interviewer asks why a second time.

Day 1 — Measure before reasoning

• Take a slow piece of your own code, write down in advance where you believe the time goes, then profile it and record how wrong the guess was. The cost is usually an allocation you did not notice or an accidental quadratic membership test.
• Replace one list membership test inside a loop with a set and measure at a thousand, ten thousand and a hundred thousand elements, confirming the shape of the curve rather than only that it got faster.
• Write down the three quantities you can now measure instead of assert: wall time, peak memory, and call count for the function you suspected.

Deliverable: A before-and-after profile of real code plus a written note on the size of the gap between the guess and the measurement.

Day 2 — References, copies, and the bugs they produce

• Write the function with a mutable default argument, call it three times, and explain the accumulating result: the default is evaluated once when the function is defined, so every call shares one object.
• Build a nested structure, take a shallow copy, mutate an inner element, and show that both views changed, because a shallow copy duplicates the container and not the elements. Then fix it with a deep copy and state the cost you just accepted.
• Write two functions, one mutating its argument in place and one rebinding the local name, and predict the caller's view of each before running it. That single distinction produces most of the bugs that pass their tests.

Deliverable: Three small programs whose output you predicted correctly before running, each with a one-line statement of the rule underneath.

Day 3 — Types, once, in a language that checks them

• Port one module you have already written, roughly a hundred lines, into a statically typed language, and record every place the compiler demanded an answer your original had left implicit: a value that can be absent, a numeric width, a case never handled.
• Write the same signature in both languages and state what the static one guarantees before the program runs and what it does not, since it will not save you from a wrong algorithm or an index out of range.
• Write the difference between an interface satisfied by declaration and one satisfied structurally, with one case each where the other approach would miss the mistake.

Deliverable: One module in two languages plus a list of the questions the type checker forced you to answer.

Day 4 — Concurrency, starting with what actually runs at the same time

• Run the same CPU-bound function across four threads and four processes and measure both. Under the default CPython build the threaded version will not speed up, because only one thread executes bytecode at a time; the process version will. Check which build you are on first, since free-threaded builds remove that lock and change the result.
• Then run a blocking I/O workload across four threads and measure it speeding up, because the interpreter releases that lock around blocking calls, which is why treating threads as useless is wrong as a general claim.
• Build the lost update: two threads each incrementing a shared counter a hundred thousand times, and show a final value below the expected sum, because an increment is a load, an add and a store and the thread can be suspended between them. Fix it with a lock and then measure what the lock costs.

Deliverable: Three measurements, threads against processes on CPU work, threads on I/O work, and a demonstrated lost update, each with the mechanism written underneath.

Day 5 — Debugging as a procedure rather than an instinct

• Work one real failure as a bisection: find a revision or an input size where it is good and one where it is bad, halve repeatedly, and state the two assumptions bisection needs, that the property changes exactly once across the range and that the test is reliable.
• Minimise one failing input to the smallest version that still fails, and record how many rounds it took.
• Keep a hypothesis log for one bug in three columns, what I believe, what would disprove it, what I observed, and stop yourself the first time you are about to change two things at once.

Deliverable: One bug worked to root cause with a written hypothesis log and a minimised reproducing input.

Day 6 — Tests that catch the bug you are about to write

• Implement an LRU cache with a capacity bound, then write the three test cases that would catch an off-by-one in eviction: insert exactly capacity items and assert nothing was evicted, insert one more and assert the least recently used key is the one gone, and read an old key just before that insert so the eviction victim changes.
• Add a property test comparing your implementation against a deliberately slow reference, an ordered list scanned linearly, over a few thousand random operation sequences, because a slow reference finds the cases you would not have thought to write.
• Write one numeric test that fails under exact equality and passes with a tolerance, and state why the tolerance has to be relative rather than absolute once the magnitudes grow.

Deliverable: An LRU implementation with three boundary tests, one property test against a slow reference, and one tolerance-based numeric test.

Day 7 — Debug something broken, out loud

• Have someone plant three defects in a two-hundred-line program, an off-by-one, a shared mutable state bug, and a wrong error-handling path, then find them while narrating, under a fixed rule: state the hypothesis before touching anything.
• Time each one and record which tool found it, reading, a printed value, a debugger, or a test, because the question asked in interviews is how you would find it rather than what it was.
• Write the sentence you will use when you do not yet know the cause, one that names the next measurement instead of offering a guess.

Deliverable: A recorded debugging session with time-to-find per defect and the method that found each.

Scope is read from what you decided

Team size, service count and tickets closed say very little. Seniority shows in the decision you owned: what you chose not to build, which constraint you traded away, whose objection you had to resolve before anything could move. A large project where you executed someone else's plan is a small story.

Describe a time you had to pivot your technical approach due to changing requirements.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

1. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
2. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
3. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.

Follow-up

• What did you decide not to do, and why?
• How did you know your change caused the improvement?

How do you ensure your code is maintainable for other team members?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

1. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
2. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
3. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

• How did you know your change caused the improvement?
• What would you do differently if you ran that again?

Resolve a review disagreement over a quota check

Easy · code review · isolation levels · write skew · disagreement

A colleague's pull request enforces a per-tenant quota by selecting the current count and then inserting when it is under the limit. You flag it as a race. They reply that the transaction already runs at repeatable read, so the snapshot makes it safe, and the tests pass. Walk through taking that disagreement to a resolution: what you write in the review, what you demonstrate rather than assert, which fix you propose and why, and what you do if they still disagree after all of it.

Approach

1. Answer the claim precisely instead of restating your objection, because they have made a specific technical argument. In PostgreSQL, repeatable read is snapshot isolation; this is write skew, which snapshot isolation permits by design. Both transactions read a count that is stable within their own snapshot, insert disjoint rows that the other cannot see, and both commit, so the limit is exceeded by exactly the concurrency.
2. Demonstrate rather than cite. Two psql sessions, both BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ, both select the count, both insert, both commit: it succeeds. Repeat at SERIALIZABLE and the second commit fails with serialization_failure, SQLSTATE 40001. That takes two minutes, ends the argument without anyone conceding a position, and leaves an artefact for the next reviewer.
3. Offer the options with their costs rather than a verdict. Serialisable plus a retry loop on 40001 is correct but obliges every caller to retry and degrades under contention. An increment-and-compare on a counter row — update tenant_quota set used = used + 1 where tenant_id = $1 and used < limit returning used — is safe even at read committed, because a blocked updater re-evaluates the WHERE clause against the row version it finally locks, and zero rows returned means full. A unique or exclusion constraint that makes the surplus write fail is the third.
4. Name the plausible non-fix explicitly, since it is what usually gets merged instead: folding the count into the insert as insert ... select ... where (select count(*) ...) < limit is still racy under read committed, because the subquery cannot see the other transaction's uncommitted rows. It looks atomic and is not.
5. Say what you do if they still disagree: escalate the decision rather than the disagreement. Attach the reproduction, hand it to the service owner or a third reviewer, and state that you will not block the merge if the owner accepts the risk knowingly — and that you want that acceptance written down.
6. Close with the general lesson worth leaving in the review thread: a passing suite is weak evidence for a concurrency claim because it runs one request at a time. Ask for a test that runs two.

Follow-up

• Write the counter-row version. Does your answer change if the quota counts child rows rather than a column?
• Under serialisable, who performs the retry, and what does the API client see if the retry also fails?
• This is the third disagreement with the same reviewer this month. What changes in how you review?