Interview guides · Ernst & Young Advisory Services Sdn Bhd

Ernst & Young Advisory Services Sdn Bhd Machine Learning Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Ernst & Young Advisory Services Sdn Bhd Machine Learning Engineer interview guide: rounds, practice questions and a prep plan.

The 60-second brief

As a Machine Learning Engineer at Ernst & Young Advisory Services Sdn Bhd, you stand at the intersection of cutting-edge artificial intelligence and high-impact business transformation. In this role, you are not simply building models in isolation; you are architecting, deploying, and scaling enterprise-grade AI solutions that solve complex, real-world problems for some of the world's largest organizations. Your work directly influences how clients across financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, and government leverage data to automate operations, mitigate risks, and uncover hidden value.

Browser-facing seats are not covered by algorithm practice. Scope in state ownership, what the page does on a slow or failed request, and how you would diagnose something that renders correctly but feels slow.

Focus areas

Paginate large result sets with keyset cursors
Choose indexes from the query's access path
Make every write idempotent under retry

Overview

At Ernst & Young Advisory Services Sdn Bhd (commonly known as EY), the AI and Advanced Analytics practice operates with a strong consultative mindset. You will work on diverse problem spaces—ranging from natural language processing (NLP) systems that analyze massive corpuses of legal documents, to computer vision systems optimizing manufacturing pipelines, to generative AI architectures utilizing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to transform knowledge management. The scale and variety of these projects demand both deep technical rigor and the ability to translate complex mathematical concepts into clear business outcomes.

This position is highly critical because EY's clients rely on the firm to deliver robust, production-ready ML pipelines rather than mere proof-of-concepts. You will be expected to design systems that are scalable, secure, and compliant with global data privacy standards. For a driven engineer, this environment offers an unparalleled opportunity to work with diverse datasets, influence strategic business decisions, and master the lifecycle of machine learning systems from design to deployment.

The Ernst & Young Advisory Services Sdn Bhd interview process

Ernst & Young Advisory Services Sdn Bhd candidates report 3 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Recruiter Screen

Before anything technical happens, someone has to decide which rung of the ladder your loop is calibrated to, and that decision sets the bar for every round after it. It comes from how you describe scope, not from your title, because titles do not convert cleanly between companies. The weak version of the answer is team size and years. The strong version names the largest change you shipped where nobody reviewed the design, what would have broken if you had been wrong, and what you were paged for. Get the level said out loud on this call, because the range and the loop both follow from it.

What to demonstrate

Whether the scope in your own account maps onto a level the team actually has an opening at, so a mismatch ends the process cheaply rather than after four interviewers have spent a day
Whether your title needs re-mapping: the same word describes very different amounts of independent decision-making at a twenty-person company and a ten-thousand-person one
Whether your compensation expectation can be filled at that level in the structure the role pays in, which is why the number gets asked for before any engineer is scheduled

How to prepare

Write down two changes from the last two years: the largest one you designed with nobody reviewing the design, and the largest one where someone more senior did. Lead with the first when scope comes up, and be ready to say which parts of the second were yours
Ask which level the loop is calibrated to and what changes at the level above it, then plan your weeks from that answer rather than from the posting
Settle a total-compensation range beforehand with the split named, base against bonus against equity and its vesting period, so a question about numbers gets a number instead of the word market

Technical Manager Interview

Part of what is being decided is what your manager's week looks like once you are on the team: how they find out that something you shipped is broken, and whether they hear it from you or from a customer. The material that moves this round is therefore not the launch, it is the week after. Describe how you knew the change was working, which number you watched and for how long, and what you would have reverted to. A project that ends at the word shipped leaves the manager guessing about the part they care about most.

What to demonstrate

How a change of yours was verified in production, and whether that check existed before the deploy or was assembled afterwards once something looked wrong
Whether the rollback story is specific, including the case where a revert is not enough: once a migration has dropped a column or rewritten data, going back is its own change with its own risk
Whether you can describe an incident you caused, how it was found, and how much time passed between it starting and anyone noticing
Whether bad news in your account travels early and from you, or consistently arrives via somebody else

How to prepare

For your last significant change, write down what you watched after the deploy, for how long, and the number that would have made you revert. If nothing was watched, say that plainly instead of inventing a dashboard.
Work out the rollback answer for a change that touched stored data, and be able to say what made it reversible or what you would have had to do instead. That distinction is a level signal on its own.
Write the two-minute version of an incident you owned: what broke, how it surfaced, what you did in the first ten minutes, and the change that stopped it recurring. Get the timeline straight, because this is the story most likely to be interrupted with questions.

Deep-Dive Technical Assessment

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

Where candidates lose points

Paginating with LIMIT/OFFSET over a set that changes while the client is reading it

OFFSET n makes the database produce and discard n rows before returning anything, so the cost of a page grows with its depth rather than with its size and page 500 costs five hundred pages of work. The correctness problem is worse than the cost: if a row is inserted or reordered between two page fetches, rows shift across the offset boundary and are either skipped entirely or returned twice, and neither outcome leaves any trace in the response for the client to detect. Keyset pagination - WHERE (sort_key, id) < ($last_sort_key, $last_id) ORDER BY sort_key DESC, id DESC LIMIT n, backed by an index in exactly that order - reads only the rows it returns and is stable against concurrent inserts. It requires the tie-break column: a timestamp is not unique, and duplicate sort keys straddling a page boundary reintroduce the skip it was adopted to remove.

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.

Hardcoding to the sample inputs

Solve the stated problem rather than the two examples; special-casing a literal to make a sample pass is obvious immediately and reads as either a misunderstanding or an attempt to fake progress. If you genuinely cannot generalise yet, say which part is a stub and what would replace it.

Assuming the bug is in the framework

Suspect your own code first: read the stack trace top to bottom, check which versions are actually installed rather than which ones you believe are, and reproduce in isolation before blaming a library that thousands of people run daily. When the fault really is upstream, you need that minimal reproduction to say so credibly anyway.

Questions & practice

Walk me through the mathematical optimization process of Support Vector Machines (SVMs).

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.

Follow-up

How would you know the model is overfitting?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

How do you address the vanishing gradient problem in deep neural networks?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.

Follow-up

What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?
How would you know the model is overfitting?

How do you handle highly imbalanced datasets when training a classification model?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.
State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.

Follow-up

What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?
How would you know the model is overfitting?

Explain the self-attention mechanism in Transformer architectures. How does it differ from recurrent architectures like LSTMs?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.

Follow-up

How would you know the model is overfitting?
What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?

Collapse a redelivered event batch into per-aggregate high-water marks

Easy · hashing · at-least-once · aggregation

You drain a batch of up to 5,000,000 events, each (aggregate_id BIGINT, aggregate_version INT, event_type, payload). The log guarantees order within one aggregate only; the batch merges 64 partitions, and a relay failover has redelivered a range, so an older version for an aggregate can appear after a newer one. Given a map of last_applied_version per aggregate, produce the events worth applying, at most one per (aggregate_id, version), plus the count discarded. Target O(n) time. State the memory for 2,000,000 distinct aggregates and what you do when it does not fit.

Approach

One pass, one hash map from aggregate_id to the highest version kept, and a discard counter. An event whose version is at or below last_applied_version for its aggregate is dropped without further work, which is the whole reason the event carries its version rather than a delta. O(n) expected time, O(d) space in distinct aggregates.
Keep the maximum, never the last occurrence. The redelivered range means the final appearance of an aggregate in the batch can be an older version than one seen earlier in the same batch, so last-wins applies stale state over newer state and the projection regresses with no error anywhere.
Cost the memory instead of calling it large: an 8-byte key plus a 4-byte version is 12 bytes of payload, and an open-addressed table held at a 0.7 load factor costs roughly 17 bytes per entry before per-slot metadata, so 2,000,000 aggregates is tens of megabytes in a native layout and several times that in a runtime that boxes both key and value.
If the distinct set exceeds memory, partition on hash(aggregate_id) mod P and reduce each partition independently. Every event for one aggregate hashes to the same partition, so the per-partition result is exact and the merge is concatenation rather than a second reduction.
Reject sorting the batch by (aggregate_id, version) as the default. It is O(n log n) and buys nothing, because max is associative and commutative and needs no ordering; sorting earns its cost only when the downstream consumer must receive the events in order rather than a per-aggregate winner.
Separate the two mechanisms out loud: in-batch deduplication does not make the consumer idempotent, because the same event redelivered tomorrow arrives in a different batch entirely. The projection write itself still has to be keyed on (aggregate_id, version).

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the pass: look up last_applied_version, skip if the event's version is not greater, otherwise upsert into the keep-map only when the incoming version exceeds the version already held, incrementing the discard counter on every skip.
Hand-trace one aggregate whose events arrive as v5, v3, v4, v5 with last_applied_version = 2, and confirm the output holds v5 once while the counter reads 3.
Compute the table footprint for 2,000,000 entries at 12 bytes of payload and a 0.7 load factor, then state the multiplier for a runtime that boxes keys and values.
Add the hash-partitioning fallback and say in one sentence why the per-partition results need no cross-partition merge logic.

Expected result: A single-pass O(n) reduction keyed on aggregate_id that keeps the maximum version rather than the last occurrence, O(d) space with the byte cost stated for 2,000,000 aggregates, a hash-partitioning fallback keyed on aggregate_id, and an explicit statement that batch-local deduplication does not replace a projection write keyed on (aggregate_id, version).

Verify it yourself

Shuffling the batch order changes nothing in the output, which is the test that separates max-wins from last-wins.
Feeding the same batch twice produces an identical keep-set and only doubles the discard counter.
Every emitted event has a version strictly greater than the supplied last_applied_version for its aggregate.

Follow-up

The payload is a patch rather than a snapshot, so applying only the highest version loses the intermediate changes. What changes in your reduction?
How do you detect that version 7 arrived while version 6 was never delivered, and what should the consumer do about the gap?
Two events for one aggregate carry the same version with different payloads. Which one is wrong, and how would you find out?

Stop tag and share joins from fanning out a page

Medium · join fan-out · semi-joins · many-to-many

resource_tag is (resource_id, tag_id) with PK (resource_id, tag_id); resource_share is (resource_id, shared_with_user_id, permission). The tagged-and-shared listing inner-joins resource to both, filters tenant_id, tag_id = ANY($2) and shared_with_user_id = $3, orders by updated_at DESC and takes 50. Pages come back with fewer than 50 distinct resources and the total in the header is far too high. Explain the row multiplication, rewrite both the page query and the count query so each is correct, and name the index each one needs. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

Do the arithmetic against the predicates that are actually there. An inner join emits one row per matching child row, and both joins are filtered: tag_id = ANY($2) admits only the requested tags, shared_with_user_id = $3 admits one user's share rows. So a resource holding three of the requested tags and shared with $3 once yields three rows, not one — the multiplier is its count of matching tags times its share rows for that single user, and that second factor is 1 unless the table admits duplicate (resource_id, shared_with_user_id) pairs. LIMIT 50 then limits rows rather than resources, and COUNT(*) counts pairs — the header is the product, not the population.
Reject DISTINCT as the fix. It deduplicates after the product has been built, so the planner must materialise and sort the fanned-out set before the LIMIT can apply, and it leaves any SUM or AVG in the same select list wrong.
Rewrite both filters as semi-joins, keeping resource as the only row source: AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = r.resource_id AND rt.tag_id = ANY($2)) and the same shape against resource_share. A semi-join stops at the first match per resource and preserves the driving index order, so ORDER BY updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC LIMIT 50 still stops after 50 rows.
Count with the same predicates and no join at all: SELECT count(*) FROM resource r WHERE r.tenant_id = $1 AND r.status = 'active' AND EXISTS (...) AND EXISTS (...). Nothing multiplies a resource, so the number is the population.
Attach the tags for display after the page has been cut — LEFT JOIN LATERAL (SELECT array_agg(rt.tag_id) FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = p.resource_id) ON TRUE over the 50 returned rows. Aggregate over the page, never over the tenant.
Index both directions and say which query each serves: PK (resource_id, tag_id) serves the lateral lookup, (tag_id, resource_id) serves the EXISTS probe by tag, and resource_share needs (shared_with_user_id, resource_id) for the same reason. An index covering one direction only leaves the other as a scan.

Worked solution (30 min)

Build a tenant where each resource carries 0-5 tags from a 20-tag vocabulary and is shared with 0-4 distinct users, then bind $2 to three tags and $3 to a user holding shares on about half the resources. Run the joined query and compare its row count to the distinct resource count on page one.
Run COUNT(*) on the joined shape and on the EXISTS shape and compare both to a ground truth computed from distinct ids; then give $3 a second permission row on 10% of resources and record which of the two counts moves.
EXPLAIN both page queries and compare rows-read plus the presence of a Sort or HashAggregate node above the join.
Add (tag_id, resource_id), re-run the EXISTS probe, and record the plan change on the inner side.

Expected result: The EXISTS page returns exactly 50 distinct resources and reads about 50 driving rows with no aggregate above the join. The EXISTS count matches the ground truth. The joined COUNT(*) is larger by roughly the average number of matching tags per qualifying resource — the tags it holds from $2, not its total tag count — times its share rows for $3, which is 1 until the duplicate permission rows exist and rises with them afterwards. The EXISTS count is unchanged by those duplicates.

Verify it yourself

The page's resource_id list has no duplicates and is 50 long whenever at least 50 rows match.
count(*) from the rewrite equals count(DISTINCT r.resource_id) over the joined shape.
EXPLAIN shows a semi-join node on the inner side rather than a full join followed by a unique or aggregate step.

Follow-up

The filter changes from 'any of these tags' to 'all of these tags'. Rewrite it and state what it costs relative to the ANY form.
A resource can be shared with the same user twice under different permissions. Does your count change, and should it?
Where does the correct total come from when the tenant holds 4M resources and the header must not cost 200 ms?

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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?

How do you handle data drift and concept drift in a production environment?

Medium · ml system design and production

Approach

Say where features come from at serving time and how they match training.
Fix the product goal and the online metric before choosing any model.
Name what you would monitor after launch and what triggers a retrain.

Follow-up

How would you roll the new model out safely?
How would you detect drift before the metric drops?

What are the key considerations when choosing between batch inference and real-time streaming inference?

Medium · ml system design and production

Approach

Separate the offline training path from the online serving path.
Fix the product goal and the online metric before choosing any model.
Say where features come from at serving time and how they match training.

Follow-up

How would you detect drift before the metric drops?
How would you roll the new model out safely?

Walk through the architecture of a residual network (ResNet) and explain why skip connections are effective.

Medium · system design

Approach

Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.

Follow-up

How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
What would you drop to keep the system up under load?

Explain how you would design a scalable data preprocessing pipeline for a dataset that does not fit into system memory.

Medium · system design

Approach

Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.
Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.

Follow-up

What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?

Specify the outbound webhook contract a customer endpoint can verify

Medium · webhooks · hmac · at-least-once · ordering

Egress delivery sends resource.created, resource.updated and resource.archived to roughly 40k customer endpoints at about 1.5k deliveries/second, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10 second connect-plus-read timeout, at-least-once from the relay. The receiver is code you do not control, often behind a proxy that may re-encode JSON. Specify the payload envelope, how the receiver verifies authenticity and rejects replays, what ordering it may assume, how it deduplicates, which status codes it should return and what each means to us, and the retry, circuit and replay behaviour.

Approach

Send the fact, not a pointer: event_id, event_type, aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, occurred_at and the payload copied from outbox_event. A receiver told only that resource 42 changed has to call back, and the call back returns a newer state than the event describes - that is precisely how a consumer applies changes out of order while believing it is following them.
Sign the exact bytes on the wire: HMAC-SHA256 over the timestamp, a separator, and the raw body, in a header, compared in constant time before the body is parsed. Instruct receivers to verify the raw bytes, never a re-serialised copy, since a proxy that reorders keys or changes whitespace invalidates a signature computed over re-encoded JSON. Reject a timestamp outside a tolerance - five minutes is typical - and keep a short seen-set of event_ids, because a capture replayed inside the tolerance still verifies.
Support key rotation by sending several signature values in one header during the overlap window and publishing that any one that verifies is sufficient. Without that rule a key rotation is a synchronised outage across every destination at once.
State the guarantee as it actually is: at-least-once and unordered, including within a single aggregate_id. The outbox is ordered per aggregate at the source, but the relay holds up to 4 requests in flight per destination and backs off each retry independently, so a version 6 delivery that needs one retry lands after a version 7 that succeeded on its first attempt. Publishing per-aggregate ordering we do not enforce is worse than publishing none, because a receiver that trusts it overwrites new state with old. Receivers deduplicate on event_id and apply conditionally - UPDATE ... WHERE aggregate_version < :incoming, or the same comparison under a row lock on the aggregate - which discards stale redeliveries and stays correct when two deliveries for one aggregate are processed at the same time. A duplicate and an out-of-order delivery then have the same outcome: no-op.
Define the response contract in the receiver's terms. 2xx means durably accepted, and accepting means writing it down - a receiver that does its processing inline inside our 10 second timeout will be retried while it is still working. 4xx is permanent and we stop. 429, 5xx and timeouts are retried with capped exponential backoff and full jitter within the per-destination concurrency cap, and a circuit opens after a run of consecutive failures and half-opens on a schedule, so a permanently dead endpoint costs one probe per interval instead of a growing queue.
Give them a recovery path that does not involve us holding a queue for everyone: a visible parked state, and a replay endpoint keyed by event_id or time range, so a receiver that was down for two hours asks for the gap on its own schedule.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the envelope fields and mark which are needed for deduplication and which for discarding a stale delivery.
Write the signature string construction and the receiver's verification steps in order, including the constant-time compare and the tolerance check.
Write the receiver's idempotent apply: dedupe on event_id, then the version-conditional write that discards stale and concurrently delivered redeliveries.
Write the status-to-action table from our side: which codes retry, which stop, and what opens the circuit.
Describe the parked state and the replay call, including what the customer must supply.

Expected result: A self-contained signed envelope, verification over raw bytes with a replay window and a seen-set, an at-least-once guarantee that states delivery is unordered even within one aggregate, a version-conditional apply, a status table that distinguishes permanent from transient, and a customer-driven replay path.

Verify it yourself

Delivering the same event twice leaves the receiver's state identical to delivering it once.
Delivering version 7 and then version 6 for one aggregate leaves version 7 applied.
A destination that always times out costs one probe per circuit interval rather than a retry queue.

Follow-up

A customer insists an event never arrived. What do you check, in order, and which table settles the argument?
A receiver cannot store a version and asks us to deliver their events in order. What would the relay have to give up to offer that, and what does one failing event then do to the rest of their stream?

Exports duplicate a row range about once a week

Hard · leases · clock skew · idempotency · fencing

Roughly once a week an export writes a file containing a duplicated range of rows. The affected job_run rows show attempt = 1, status = succeeded, one started_at, and a lease_owner naming a different host from the one whose logs show the job starting. Leases last 30 seconds and are heartbeated every 10 from inside the handler; lease_expires_at is computed on the worker and compared against the database's now(). Find the mechanism, and give a fix that holds even if you cannot fix the clocks.

Approach

Start from the fact that eliminates the obvious answer. attempt = 1 means no retry was recorded, so this is not a re-run after failure; two workers ran the same row concurrently and the takeover path never touched the counter. lease_owner naming a host other than the one that started the job is the same statement from the other side.
Enumerate the mechanisms that cause a premature takeover, then find the signal that separates them. Either the lease genuinely expired because the heartbeat did not fire, which is what happens when the heartbeat runs on the handler's own thread and the handler makes a long blocking call, or it only appeared expired because two clocks disagree, since lease_expires_at is written from the worker's clock and evaluated against the database's. The discriminator is the distribution: incidents clustered on the longest exports indict the heartbeat, incidents clustered on one host indict skew. Measure both, and measure each host's offset against the database directly.
Read the reclaim query precisely. In PostgreSQL now() is transaction start time, not statement time, so a reclaimer holding a long transaction compares against an older timestamp than expected; clock_timestamp() is the statement-time function. This is worth ruling in or out before you redesign anything, because it changes which rows look expired.
Remove the second clock rather than trying to synchronise it. Issue and extend the lease in the database, with lease_expires_at = now() + interval '30 seconds' in both the claim and the heartbeat, so exactly one clock is ever compared and worker skew stops mattering to this predicate.
Accept that a lease can still expire under a slow worker, because a lease cannot distinguish slow from dead, and fence the work. Carry a monotonically increasing lease generation and make every write the handler performs conditional on still holding it, as UPDATE ... WHERE job_run_id = $1 AND lease_owner = $2 AND lease_generation = $3, so a displaced worker's writes affect zero rows and it aborts instead of duplicating.
Make the handler's writes idempotent independently of all that: give each exported chunk a natural key of (job_run_id, batch_start) with a unique constraint so a second copy conflicts rather than appends, move the heartbeat off the handler's thread, and increment attempt on takeover so the event is visible in a metric.

Follow-up

The displaced worker has already streamed half the file to object storage. What makes that side effect safe to repeat?
You now count takeovers. What alert fires on that counter, and at what threshold?
What breaks if you simply raise the lease to five minutes?

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.

What the behavioural round is actually measuring

Every story you tell gets read for blast radius and judgement: what could have broken, who else it touched, what you knew at the moment you decided. Nobody can audit your code in an hour, so they audit your reasoning instead. Pick work where the call was genuinely yours and the consequences were real enough to remember.

Turn a code review disagreement into a decision

Easy · code review · optimistic concurrency · communication

A colleague's change updates a row with UPDATE resource SET version = version + 1 WHERE resource_id = $1 AND version = $2 and treats an affected-row count of zero as a successful no-op. You read that as a silently lost update; they think returning 200 is friendlier to clients than returning a conflict. Describe how you have handled a review disagreement of this shape: what goes in the comment, when you leave the thread, and who decides. Then write the comment you would leave here, in under 80 words.

Approach

Sort the disagreement before writing anything. A silently discarded write is a correctness claim about data; the choice between 409 and 412 is taste. Only the first justifies blocking a merge, and saying which one you are doing is most of the value of the comment.
Make the claim reproducible in the comment itself with an interleaving rather than a principle: A reads version 7, B reads version 7, B commits version 8, A's predicate matches zero rows, A is told it succeeded and A's edit is gone.
Offer the alternative with its cost attached: return 409 carrying the current version and the revision that won, so the client can re-read and re-apply. Note that automatic retry is not the fix, because a retry re-reads the winner's state and reapplies an intent formed against data that no longer exists.
Apply an escalation rule you can state: two round trips on the thread, then a call, and the service's owner decides rather than the reviewer. A reviewer who cannot be overruled is a bottleneck with extra steps.
Close in writing wherever the decision lands, so the next reader finds the reasoning in the code or the ticket instead of in a collapsed review thread.

Follow-up

Where would you put the test that fails if someone reintroduces the swallowed zero rowcount?
The author says clients cannot handle a 409. How do you check whether that is true?
How do you handle the same review comment when the author is more senior than you and in a hurry?

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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?

Reverse your own decision and price the reversal

Medium · reversibility · measurement · migrations

Describe a technical decision you made and later reversed. Pick one that cost something: a service you split and merged back, a cache you added and removed, an index you created that pushed the planner onto a worse plan, a projection you rebuilt from scratch. State what you believed when you decided, the measurement that changed your mind, how long the wrong version ran in production, and what the reversal cost in migrations, dual writes, and a deprecation window for callers you did not own.

Approach

State the original rationale without irony, in the version you would still defend given what was known then. If it is not defensible, the story is about carelessness rather than judgement, and a different example serves you better.
Give the measurement that moved with a before and after: the p99 that did not improve, the cache hit rate that sat at 40%, the plan that flipped to a sequential scan once the table passed a size you can name.
Cost the reversal in steps, not adjectives: expand-and-contract deploys, the dual-write window, the callers who had to be notified, the rows already written in the wrong shape that had to be backfilled or abandoned.
Distinguish reversal from rewrite by naming what you kept. Most good reversals preserve the schema or the interface and undo one decision inside it, which is also why they were affordable.
Finish on the process change: the smallest experiment that would have produced the same measurement in a day, and why you did not run it the first time.

Follow-up

What in that decision was irreversible, and did you know it was irreversible when you made it?
How did you tell the people who had already built on top of the original decision?
What do you now measure before committing to a change of this size?