Aabasoft Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

A Software Engineer at Aabasoft is a pivotal contributor tasked with building and maintaining high-impact solutions that drive the company’s technological footprint. You will operate in a fast-paced, collaborative environment where your ability to translate complex requirements into clean, scalable code directly influences the success of Aabasoft's clients and its internal operations.

Prepare in one language you know well enough to debug in rather than the one you think reads best. Under a clock an unfamiliar language costs you standard-library lookups and iteration mechanics, and that time comes out of your thinking budget, not your typing budget.

Focus areas

• Detect concurrent edits instead of losing writes
• Make every write idempotent under retry
• Trace a symptom to a mechanism under load

Overview

This role is not just about writing code; it is about solving real-world challenges through innovation. Whether you are working on enterprise-grade applications, cloud services, or specialized support systems, you will be expected to stay at the forefront of the industry. Aabasoft values engineers who are curious, adaptable, and eager to leverage modern technologies to solve evolving business needs.

Where to focus your preparation

Treat the sections below as preparation areas and confirm the format with your recruiter.

Preparation focus

No round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.

What to demonstrate

• Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
• Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method

How to prepare

• Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
• Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove

Where candidates lose points

Assuming an isolation level prevents the anomaly you actually have

Isolation levels are named by the SQL standard but implemented differently, so any claim about one is only true of a named engine. PostgreSQL defaults to READ COMMITTED, where every statement takes a fresh snapshot, so two statements inside one transaction can legitimately disagree about the same row. Its REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable and phantom reads but permits write skew, where two transactions each read a set, each conclude their own write is safe, both commit, and the combined result violates a constraint that no single row expresses. Only SERIALIZABLE closes that, and it closes it by aborting a transaction with a serialization failure (SQLSTATE 40001), which means the guarantee is theoretical unless the application has a retry loop. InnoDB's REPEATABLE READ is a different mechanism again - plain SELECTs read a consistent snapshot while locking reads and writes see the latest committed row - so a read-modify-write inside one transaction can act on a value that the transaction's own earlier SELECT never returned.

Letting a slow dependency consume unbounded concurrency

The failure that takes a service down is usually not an error but a delay. A dependency answering in thirty seconds instead of fifty milliseconds holds each request's worker or connection six hundred times longer, and since required concurrency is arrival rate times latency, a fleet sized for sixty in-flight requests now needs thirty-six thousand to sustain the same rate - so it queues, and requests whose clients have already abandoned them still occupy resources. Retries make it precisely worse: a policy of three attempts triples the load on a dependency at the exact moment it is least able to serve, which is how one slow dependency becomes an outage of everything sharing that pool. Containment is four specific things - a timeout on every outbound call shorter than the caller's remaining budget, a bounded pool per dependency so one cannot starve the others, backoff with full jitter rather than a fixed delay so retries do not resynchronise, and a circuit that stops sending once the failure rate makes an attempt pointless.

Naming no test cases at all

State what you would test before being asked: empty input, a single element, all elements equal, the maximum permitted size, and the input that exercises the branch you just wrote. It costs thirty seconds and is much of what separates someone who has shipped code from someone who has only solved puzzles.

Starting work without saying what you are about to spend time on

State the plan before executing it: the approach, roughly how long it will take, and what you intend to leave hand-waved. That gives the interviewer a chance to redirect you in ten seconds rather than watching you spend fifteen minutes on the wrong sub-problem.

Questions & practice

Canonicalise a request body into a stable idempotency fingerprint

Medium · parsing · canonicalisation · hashing

idempotency_key.request_fingerprint is a SHA-256 over the method, path and canonicalised body, and a retry whose fingerprint differs must be rejected with 422 rather than served the stored response. Write the canonicaliser. Bodies are JSON up to 256 KB nested at most 32 levels; clients vary key order, whitespace and unicode escaping, and some send 64-bit ids as JSON numbers. Produce a deterministic byte string such that semantically identical bodies match and any semantic difference does not. State your complexity and name two normalisations you refuse to perform.

Approach

1. Parse once into a tree, then re-serialise under fixed rules: object keys sorted, array order preserved, one escaping convention, no insignificant whitespace. Parsing is O(n) and sorting keys is O(k log k) per object, so O(n log n) overall with O(depth) stack, and the 32-level cap is enforced during parsing because hostile nesting is how a canonicaliser becomes a stack overflow.
2. Sort keys by their UTF-8 bytes and say why the obvious implementation is wrong in some runtimes: a default string comparison that orders by UTF-16 code units places surrogate pairs, meaning code points from U+10000 up, below U+E000 to U+FFFF, which is not UTF-8 byte order, so two services written in different languages disagree on the same document.
3. Do not re-encode numbers through a double. IEEE-754 binary64 represents integers exactly only up to 2^53, so normalising a 19-digit id through a float changes it, and 1 against 1.0 cannot be reconciled without deciding whether they are the same value. Preserve the literal token, and require ids as strings at the API boundary if you want them comparable.
4. Reject duplicate keys rather than picking one. JSON permits them and parsers disagree, most keeping the last, so any choice you make ties the fingerprint to a parser detail that the code handling the request does not necessarily share.
5. Frame the hash preimage so concatenation cannot collide: delimit or length-prefix the method, path and body, otherwise one request's fields can be rearranged into another request with the same byte stream and the same fingerprint.
6. Name the refusals and their consequence: no case folding, no dropping of null-valued keys, no Unicode normalisation. Each makes two different requests fingerprint alike, and the resulting failure is the worst one this table has, since the second request is answered with the first one's stored response and its effect never happens.

Follow-up

• A client sends the same logical request with an extra field your API ignores. Same key, different fingerprint, so you return 422. Is that the right answer?
• Where does the fingerprint get computed relative to request decompression and the body-size limit?
• The endpoint takes 1,000 requests per second with 256 KB bodies. What does hashing cost, and does it belong at the edge or in the core service?

Merge partitioned event streams into one ordered feed with bounded lateness

Hard · k-way merge · watermarks · out-of-order streams

The read-model service consumes 64 log partitions carrying about 4,000 events per second in total. Each partition is ordered within itself, but partitions drift by up to 30 seconds, and the activity feed must present a tenant's events in occurred_at order. Produce the merge. State its complexity, the buffer it requires in events and in bytes, what happens when one partition is idle, and what you do with an event that arrives after you have already emitted its position. Payloads average 1 KB.

Approach

1. Merge with a min-heap over the 64 partition heads keyed on (occurred_at, event_id): O(log P) per event and O(n log P) overall. The tie-break on event_id is what makes the output deterministic when two partitions carry the same millisecond, which matters because the feed is paginated and a non-deterministic order reorders pages under the reader.
2. Emitting the heap head is only correct once every partition has produced everything up to that timestamp, so the emit condition is a watermark: the minimum across partitions of the highest occurred_at seen, less the allowed lateness. Events are held until the watermark passes them, which is what turns individually ordered streams into a jointly ordered one.
3. Size the buffer from the lateness rather than guessing: 4,000 events per second times 30 seconds is 120,000 buffered events, and at 1 KB each about 120 MB of heap. That number is the real price of the ordering guarantee and belongs in front of whoever asked for it.
4. Handle the idle partition explicitly, because it fails the feed rather than corrupting it: a partition with no traffic never advances its own maximum, so the watermark freezes and output stops entirely. Either every partition emits a periodic idle marker carrying the broker's current time, or the watermark falls back to wall clock for a partition silent beyond a threshold.
5. Choose the late-event policy from what the projection is keyed on. The projection upserts on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version) and discards a version it has already applied, so a late event is safe to apply out of order and correctness never depended on the merge at all. Apply it, recompute the affected feed page, and count lateness so the 30-second budget can be re-derived from data rather than folklore.
6. Say what the merge does not buy: ordering is guaranteed within one aggregate by the log's partitioning, and no watermark makes the cross-aggregate order authoritative. Two events from different aggregates in the same millisecond have no true order, so the feed's order is a presentation choice that must be stable rather than correct.

Worked solution (35 min)

1. Write the heap comparator on (occurred_at, event_id) and the per-partition head refill.
2. Write the watermark computation and the emit-loop condition, then list which buffered events are held at a chosen instant.
3. Compute the buffer at 4,000 events per second, 30 seconds and 1 KB per event, and state what fraction of a worker's heap that represents.
4. Add the idle-partition marker and trace the watermark with one silent partition, both with and without the marker.
5. Write the late-event path and name the key that makes applying it safe.

Expected result: A 64-way min-heap merge at O(n log P) with a deterministic (occurred_at, event_id) comparator, a watermark of the per-partition minimum less 30 seconds gating emission, a stated buffer of 120,000 events and roughly 120 MB, idle markers so a silent partition cannot freeze the watermark, and a late-event policy justified by the projection's idempotency on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version).

Verify it yourself

• Feeding the partitions in an adversarial interleaving produces the same output sequence as feeding them in timestamp order.
• Silencing one partition stalls output without the idle marker and does not stall it with the marker.
• Applying a late event twice leaves the projection byte-identical, which is what permits the out-of-order path to exist.

Follow-up

• The lateness budget is raised to five minutes. What is the new buffer, and what besides memory changes?
• The consumer restarts. Where does it resume from, and what does the feed look like for the first 30 seconds?
• One partition is ten minutes behind because its producer is slow. Do you stall the feed or emit without it?

Track a rolling failure rate per destination for circuit decisions

Easy · sliding window · ring buffer · circuit breaker

The egress service delivers about 1,500 webhooks per second across roughly 40,000 destinations, each call bounded by a 10 second timeout. Maintain, per destination, the failure rate over the trailing 60 seconds so a caller can ask before dispatch whether the circuit should open. Attempts arrive as (destination_id, finished_at_ms, outcome). Requirement: amortised O(1) per attempt, with total memory bounded by the destination count rather than by traffic. Give the structure, its exact memory, and the rule that stops a destination with three attempts from opening a circuit.

Approach

1. Name the exact-deque version and then reject it as the default. Holding timestamps and advancing a tail pointer past anything older than now minus 60 seconds is a correct two-pointer window at amortised O(1) per attempt, but its memory tracks in-window traffic, so one destination in a retry storm holds hundreds of thousands of entries while thousands of quiet destinations hold none.
2. Use a ring of 60 one-second buckets per destination, each bucket a pair of counters for attempts and failures. On an attempt, advance the ring by the elapsed whole seconds, zeroing at most min(elapsed, 60) buckets, then increment the head. That is amortised O(1) with a fixed footprint per destination.
3. State the footprint: 60 buckets times two 4-byte counters is 480 bytes of payload per destination, so 40,000 destinations is roughly 20 to 25 MB with per-entry overhead, bounded by the catalogue rather than by the rate. The cost is granularity, since the oldest bucket ages out in whole seconds, which is far tighter than the decision needs.
4. Require a minimum sample before the circuit may open. A destination with three attempts and three failures reads as 100 percent and is not evidence; a floor of roughly 20 attempts in the window makes the ratio meaningful, and below that floor use a run of consecutive failures as the trigger instead.
5. Expire idle destinations, or memory grows with every destination ever seen rather than with the live set. Hold the rings in a bounded LRU keyed on destination_id and treat a miss as no history, which is the correct default for an endpoint that has been silent for a minute.
6. Keep the half-open probe out of the window arithmetic. After the circuit opens, one probe per interval decides whether to close it, and folding that single success into a window that still holds a 100 percent failure history would reopen the destination on one data point.

Follow-up

• The fleet is 30 instances and each sees roughly a thirtieth of a destination's traffic. Where does the rate actually live, and what does a per-instance answer get wrong?
• A destination answers in 9.5 seconds and succeeds. It is not failing but it is consuming your per-destination concurrency. What signal should open the circuit here?
• How would you make the window survive a process restart, and is it worth the cost?

Keep soft-deleted accounts from blocking re-registration

Easy · soft delete · unique constraints · engine differences

app_user holds user_id, tenant_id, email CITEXT, password_hash (NULL for SSO principals), email_verified_at, auth_version, status ('invited','active','suspended','deactivated'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at. Two live accounts for one address inside a tenant must be impossible, but an address freed by a soft delete must be reusable, and the same tenant may delete and re-register it repeatedly. Write the uniqueness DDL for PostgreSQL 16, then the equivalent for MySQL 8 where partial indexes do not exist, and say what each permits once three deleted rows already hold that address.

Approach

1. Start from what is actually unique: not (tenant_id, email), but (tenant_id, email) among live rows. PostgreSQL says that directly — CREATE UNIQUE INDEX app_user_live_email ON app_user (tenant_id, email) WHERE deleted_at IS NULL. A full constraint over the same two columns burns the address permanently the first time someone deletes an account.
2. Keep case-insensitivity in the type or the index, never in the application: CITEXT as given, or UNIQUE (tenant_id, lower(email)) as an expression index where the extension is unavailable. A case-sensitive unique column is exactly how two accounts for one human appear.
3. For MySQL 8 the predicate has to move inside the key: add a discriminator column that is a constant 0 while the row is live and is set to user_id on delete, with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker). Live rows share the constant and still collide; deleted rows differ from each other and stop colliding.
4. State the NULL variant and its dependency: leaving the marker NULL for deleted rows also works, because a unique index treats NULLs as distinct — true in MySQL, and true in PostgreSQL only under the default NULLS DISTINCT, which PostgreSQL 15 lets you reverse. Check the polarity against the three existing deleted rows: constant-on-live is what preserves the collision you want, and reversing it silently admits duplicate live accounts.
5. Say what a soft delete must do besides setting deleted_at: increment auth_version so existing tokens stop validating, leave resource.owner_user_id and resource_revision.actor_user_id intact, and accept that the address is retained — erasure is a different requirement answered by scrubbing the column, not by a DELETE that would break those references.

Follow-up

• A deleted account re-registers with the same address the next day. Do the old resource rows follow the new user_id, and how does the API keep the two principals apart?
• How do you honour an erasure request while resource_revision.actor_user_id still references this table?
• What changes if a user may hold membership in two tenants?

Write the update path that detects a concurrent edit

Medium · optimistic concurrency · transactional outbox · audit history

resource carries version INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 1. resource_revision holds revision_id, resource_id, version, actor_user_id, change_kind, patch JSONB, request_id, created_at with UNIQUE (resource_id, version). outbox_event holds aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, event_type, payload, status. A PUT carries the version the client read. Write the exact statements for the single transaction that applies the edit, records the revision and enqueues 'resource.updated', and give the handler's branch on zero affected rows. Then say what PostgreSQL 16 does under READ COMMITTED when two of these updates hit one row at once.

Approach

1. One transaction, three writes, no network call inside it: UPDATE resource SET title = $3, version = version + 1, updated_at = now() WHERE resource_id = $1 AND tenant_id = $4 AND version = $2; then INSERT the resource_revision row at version $2 + 1; then INSERT the outbox_event row at the same aggregate_version. The event goes to a table rather than a broker because no transaction spans both.
2. Branch on the affected-row count before doing anything else. Zero has three causes — stale version, wrong tenant, row gone — so re-read once and map to 409 carrying the current version, or 404 for an id outside the caller's tenant, which also stops the endpoint confirming that another tenant's id exists.
3. State the engine behaviour instead of assuming it. Under READ COMMITTED the second UPDATE blocks on the row lock, and when the first commits PostgreSQL re-evaluates the WHERE clause against the newly committed row, so the version predicate now fails and the statement reports zero rows. Under REPEATABLE READ the identical collision raises SQLSTATE 40001 instead, so the handler must fold both shapes into one conflict response.
4. Keep UNIQUE (resource_id, version) even though the predicate already serialises writers. It is what makes a lost update unwritable if any other path ever reaches the revision table, and it converts a logic bug into 23505 rather than into a silently missing history row.
5. Refuse to auto-retry the whole PUT. A retry re-reads the winner's state and reapplies an intent formed against data that no longer exists — the silent overwrite the version token was added to detect. Return the conflict; merge field-wise only if the patches are provably disjoint.
6. Note that now() is the transaction timestamp in PostgreSQL, so resource.updated_at, the revision's created_at and the outbox row share one instant, which is what later makes reconciliation between the three tables unambiguous.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Write the three statements plus the rowcount branch and confirm they sit in one BEGIN/COMMIT with no outbound call between them.
2. Run two clients that both read version 7 and apply their updates 5 ms apart; assert one 200 and one 409.
3. Assert resource.version = 8, exactly one resource_revision row at version 8, and one outbox_event row at aggregate_version 8.
4. Repeat at REPEATABLE READ and record the different failure shape (SQLSTATE 40001) the handler must also map to 409.
5. Delete the version predicate and re-run: both writes commit and the first edit disappears with no error raised anywhere.

Expected result: Exactly one of the two commits. version = 8 with one revision row and one outbox row at version 8, the loser gets 409 carrying version 8, and no state exists in which the resource moved but the revision or the outbox row is missing.

Verify it yourself

• COUNT(*) of resource_revision for that resource equals resource.version, with no gap in the version sequence.
• Kill the process between the UPDATE and the outbox INSERT — the transaction rolls back and no event describes a change that never happened.
• Under a 50-way race, resource.version equals the number of 2xx responses rather than the number of requests.

Follow-up

• A client sends the version it read ten minutes ago and the resource has moved three versions. What is in your 409 so it can resolve the conflict without a full re-fetch?
• Two editors, two disjoint fields, no overlap. Does your answer still refuse the second write, and should it?
• Every write now touches a second hot table. How do you keep the outbox insert and its partial index from becoming the write bottleneck at 1.2k writes/second?

Can you explain the difference between [specific framework/language concepts] in your preferred stack?

Medium

Approach

1. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
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

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

Describe the most challenging project you have worked on and the technical decisions you made.

Medium

Approach

1. Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
2. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
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?

Explain the core principles of OOPs (Object-Oriented Programming) and how you apply them in your daily work.

Medium

Approach

1. Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
2. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
3. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

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

What are the latest technologies or frameworks you have been working with recently?

Medium

Approach

1. Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
2. Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
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?

Design the async export contract a client can resume safely

Hard · async operations · idempotency · leases

A tenant asks for a CSV of every resource. The work runs for minutes on the worker fleet through a job_run row carrying a lease, an attempt count and a dedupe_key, far past the edge's 400 ms budget. Callers are a browser that polls and a script that walks away and checks later. Specify what the submit call returns, the operation resource and its states, how a duplicate submit is handled, how a client learns about completion, what cancellation means given that a lease can expire mid-run, and how the result is fetched and when it expires.

Approach

1. Split the API in two. Submit returns 202 with an operation id and a location to poll, and never blocks on the work. The operation is a real resource with its own lifecycle - queued, running, succeeded, failed, cancelled - plus attempt, a monotonic progress figure, and a terminal error drawn from the same code taxonomy the synchronous endpoints use, so a client needs one error vocabulary rather than two.
2. Deduplicate at submit using job_run.dedupe_key, unique over (job_type, dedupe_key) while status is 'queued' or 'running': a repeat submit of the same logical export returns 200 with the existing operation instead of 202 with a new one, and the partial index deliberately permits a legitimate re-run once the first has finished. Pair it with the request's idempotency key so an HTTP-level retry of the submit is exact rather than merely similar.
3. Tell the poller how to poll: Retry-After on the polling response, a minimum interval enforced at the edge, and a documented maximum lifetime after which an operation is reaped. Polling is the contract of record; the webhook is the fast path, and both must lead to the same terminal state, so a client that receives the completion event and then polls anyway sees no contradiction.
4. Be exact about cancellation. A cancel request records intent; it cannot stop work already executing. The handler reads the flag at checkpoints, and because a lease expires on a clock that cannot distinguish a dead worker from a slow one, a second copy may start after the cancel was recorded - so the handler re-reads the flag immediately after claiming the lease. 'cancelled' becomes terminal only when no lease is outstanding; reporting it earlier shows a client a stopped job while a worker is still writing output.
5. Make the handler safe to run twice, because the lease guarantees that it will be. Write output to a deterministic object key derived from the operation id so a second copy overwrites its own work instead of appending a second file, and record completion with a conditional update that only the copy holding the current lease can win.
6. Treat result fetch as a separate authorised read: a short-lived signed URL, the tenant checked when it is issued rather than only when the file was produced, and a documented retention after which the operation remains terminal but the bytes are gone - a state the client must be able to tell apart from a failure.

Worked solution (40 min)

1. Write the submit request and its two possible responses, 202 for new and 200 for a duplicate, and the dedupe_key construction.
2. Draw the operation state machine, marking which transitions a client may observe and which are terminal.
3. Write the cancellation sequence across a lease expiry, showing where the second copy reads the flag.
4. Define the output key, the completion update's predicate, and why both are needed for a double run.
5. Specify result fetch: URL lifetime, authorisation point, retention, and the distinct response once the bytes are gone.

Expected result: A 202-plus-operation contract with deduplicated submits, a documented poll interval alongside an optional completion webhook, cancellation defined as recorded intent with a terminal state gated on lease ownership, an idempotent handler writing to a deterministic key, and a separately authorised expiring result.

Verify it yourself

• Submitting the same export twice while the first is running produces one job_run row and one operation id.
• Killing a worker mid-export and letting the lease expire yields one output file, not two, and one terminal transition.
• A client that receives the completion webhook and then polls sees the same terminal state and the same result location.

Follow-up

• An operation has said 'running' for 40 minutes and the worker is gone. What does the client see, and which columns in job_run decide that?
• Two tenants each submit 50 exports at once. What in this contract stops one of them delaying the other?
• The customer wants the export emailed instead. What changes, and what becomes harder to make exactly-once?

Every query on one table stalls for forty seconds mid-deploy

Medium · lock contention · ddl · migrations · postgres

During a release on PostgreSQL, every query touching resource times out for about 40 seconds and then recovers with no intervention. The release ran one migration, ALTER TABLE resource ADD COLUMN archived_reason TEXT, and the migration log shows it completing in 6 ms. Unrelated tables showed no change in error rate. Explain how a 6 ms statement caused a 40-second stall, give the ordered checks you would run on a live system to confirm it, and give the migration procedure that prevents a repeat.

Approach

1. Separate the statement's duration from the lock's duration. ADD COLUMN with no default is a catalogue-only change and genuinely runs in milliseconds, but it requires ACCESS EXCLUSIVE, and it cannot acquire that until every transaction already touching the table has finished.
2. Account for the queueing, which is the part that surprises people. A lock request that is waiting blocks later requests for conflicting modes behind it rather than letting them overtake, so one long-open transaction holds the DDL and the DDL holds all the traffic. The stall length is set by the longest open transaction, not by the size of the change.
3. Confirm on a live system in this order: pg_stat_activity for that table ordered by xact_start, looking for the oldest transaction and specifically for state = idle in transaction; then pg_locks where granted = false to find the waiter; then join them on pid to name blocker and blocked. pg_blocking_pids() does that join for you and is the fastest single call.
4. Prevent rather than merely time it better. Set lock_timeout to a second or two on the migration session so the DDL abandons the queue after a bounded wait and is retried, instead of holding it for as long as the oldest transaction lives. Be exact about what that buys: queries arriving during the wait still queue behind the pending ACCESS EXCLUSIVE request, so each attempt costs them up to one lock_timeout of added latency. The outage goes from 40 seconds to about one second per attempt, not to zero. Also run migrations away from deploy-time peaks, and put a statement timeout and an idle-in-transaction timeout on the analytics role that opens the long transactions.
5. Know the lock each change takes, since the mitigation differs by change. A column with a non-volatile default is a metadata-only change from PostgreSQL 11 and still needs the brief ACCESS EXCLUSIVE; an index needs CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, which cannot run inside a transaction block and leaves an INVALID index to drop if it fails; a check or foreign key is added NOT VALID and then VALIDATE CONSTRAINT as a separate statement under a weaker lock.

Follow-up

• The same release also wants NOT NULL on that column. What is the sequence that gets there without a long lock?
• Your lock_timeout retry fails ten times in a row because the analytics transaction is always open. What do you change?
• How does this differ on MySQL with InnoDB online DDL, and what is the equivalent of the waiting-lock queue there?

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.

Disagreement needs an outcome you did not choose

Conflict answers where you were right and everyone came round are the weakest ones. Stronger: the evidence you went and collected, what would have changed your mind, and what you did in the weeks after the call went against you. Implementing a design you argued against, properly, is a specific and checkable behaviour.

Estimate work you have never done and defend the range

Hard · estimation · backfills · expand-contract

You are asked to estimate a change you have never attempted: add a column to a 100-million-row table, populate it, move reads across, and drop the old shape. Give a range with the assumptions that generate it, including batch size, the signal your backfill throttles on, and wall-clock hours, and name the three unknowns that would move the number most. Then describe a real estimate you gave under comparable ignorance: how you expressed its uncertainty, what you committed to, and how wrong you turned out to be.

Approach

1. Decompose into independently deployable steps before estimating anything: add the column nullable, write both shapes, backfill in batches, verify, move reads, stop writing the old shape, drop it. That is four deploys spread over days, and the calendar estimate is dominated by them rather than by the loop's runtime.
2. Do the arithmetic aloud for the part that has arithmetic in it: batch size times number of batches times per-batch duration, at a write rate the primary can absorb alongside roughly 1.2k writes per second of production traffic. The loop is throttled by replication lag and lock waits, not by how fast it can issue statements.
3. Price the schema step by its lock rather than its statement duration. In PostgreSQL an ALTER TABLE taking ACCESS EXCLUSIVE waits for every open transaction on that table while later queries queue behind it, so a millisecond change issued during a thirty-second analytics query stalls that table for thirty seconds. Adding a nullable column with a non-volatile default avoids a rewrite from version 11; a new index wants CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, which cannot run inside a transaction block and leaves an invalid index behind if it fails.
4. Express the answer as a range whose endpoints each trace to a stated assumption, then name the cheapest experiment that collapses it, which is almost always running one real batch against the real table and multiplying.
5. Commit to a checkpoint rather than a completion date: the day you report a measured number from that first batch. That is a promise you can keep under uncertainty, and it is what the asker actually needs in order to plan.

Follow-up

• How do you verify the backfill genuinely finished, given rows written by production traffic while it ran?
• Where does the backfill resume from after a worker is killed mid-batch, and what makes that resume point trustworthy?
• Your first batch comes back ten times slower than assumed. What do you tell the person waiting on the estimate, and when?

Argue against a design, lose, and commit anyway

Medium · disagreement · service boundaries · decision records

Describe a design you argued against and lost. State the failure you predicted as a named mechanism, not a feeling about complexity: two services that would need one transaction, a projection with no rebuild path, a write path with no idempotency key. Say what evidence you brought, what the decision maker weighed instead, and what you did after the decision was made: what you instrumented, what you wrote down, and whether the prediction came true. Five minutes.

Approach

1. State the prediction in falsifiable form up front: the mechanism, the condition that triggers it, and the observable outcome. A prediction that cannot be checked also cannot be credited to you later.
2. Show the evidence you had at the time and label each piece honestly as measured, analogous, or intuition. Keeping the intuition is fine; disguising it as data is the thing that erodes your standing in the next argument.
3. Represent the opposing case at full strength, including the constraint you did not control: a fixed date, a team boundary, or the fact that the decision was cheap to reverse and yours was not.
4. Make disagree-and-commit concrete. Name the artefact you left behind so the prediction could be settled without you: the alert and its threshold, the counter on the dashboard, the decision note that recorded the trade-off and the condition that would revisit it.
5. Report the outcome without editing it. If the design held and your predicted mechanism never fired, say so and say what you had mis-weighted, which is more persuasive than a vindication story.

Follow-up

• What threshold on that alert would have proved you right, and did anyone ever look at it?
• If the same proposal arrived tomorrow with the same deadline, would you argue it the same way?
• How did you behave toward the design once it shipped and started failing in a different way than you predicted?

Tell callers you do not own that their integration breaks

Medium · deprecation · compatibility · stakeholders

A field in a write endpoint's response must change shape. You own the endpoint; you do not own the four internal callers or the outbound webhook consumers who read it. Describe a deprecation you were responsible for: what you shipped first, how you established who was actually reading the field, the window you gave and what set its length, what you did about the consumer who never moved, and how you decided removal was safe. Name the signal you used, not the announcement you sent.

Approach

1. Establish the reader set empirically rather than from a wiki of owners: per-field usage counters keyed by principal, or access logs attributed to a consumer. State the blind spot of whichever you pick, since a consumer that reads the field only on a monthly job will not appear in a week of logs.
2. Ship additive first. Populate the new field alongside the old one so no reader is forced to move, which is also what keeps a rolling deploy safe, because old and new instances answer the same requests at the same time and a rollback must still find the old shape present.
3. Set the window from the slowest legitimate consumer's release cadence, not from your calendar, and decide separately what to do for a consumer with no release process at all, such as an external webhook endpoint you can only email.
4. Convert silence into evidence before you rely on it: a short, low-traffic removal window that makes a still-dependent consumer fail visibly and loudly while you are watching, rather than at three in the morning after you have moved on.
5. State the removal criterion as a measurement with a duration attached, such as observed reads at zero across a full billing cycle, and keep the change reversible for one release after removal.

Follow-up

• How would you detect a consumer that reads the field only during a monthly export?
• One caller refuses to move and has a commercial relationship behind it. What changes in your plan and what does not?
• After removal, what makes the change irreversible, and how long before you cross that line?