Glassdoor Machine Learning Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

As a Machine Learning Engineer at Glassdoor, you play a pivotal role in enhancing the company's data-driven products and services. Your expertise in machine learning algorithms and statistical analysis will directly influence how users interact with Glassdoor's offerings, from personalized job recommendations to advanced analytics that support business decisions. This role is not just about coding; it’s about leveraging data to create impactful solutions that improve user experiences and drive business growth.

The behavioural round is a technical round in narrative form. Prepare it by collecting specifics you actually owned, such as a design you argued against, an incident you diagnosed, or a decision you later reversed, rather than by rehearsing phrasing.

Focus areas

• Trace a symptom to a mechanism under load
• Choose indexes from the query's access path
• Bound every outbound call with a timeout

Overview

The work of a Machine Learning Engineer at Glassdoor encompasses various exciting projects, including developing algorithms for recommendation systems, natural language processing tasks, and predictive modeling. You'll collaborate with cross-functional teams, including product managers and data scientists, to solve complex problems and deliver cutting-edge solutions that scale across millions of users. This makes the role both challenging and rewarding, as you contribute to products that help job seekers and employers alike.

The Glassdoor interview process

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

Recruiter Screening

Half of this call is the part candidates treat as small talk: start date, notice period, work authorisation and its timing, location and time zone, on-call, and the number. Those are what kill offers late, after several engineers have each spent a day. Surfacing a hard constraint now costs you nothing and occasionally buys you something, since a loop compressed to fit a competing deadline can usually only be arranged if it is asked for early. The common failure is deflecting the compensation question twice, then discovering at offer stage that the band never reached your number.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your hard constraints are compatible with the role before a loop gets booked: earliest start, notice period, what authorisation you hold and when it needs action, days on site, willingness to carry a pager
• Whether you give a compensation range with something behind it, such as current total compensation or a competing timeline, rather than leaving the band untested
• Whether your stated timeline is real, since a competing deadline raised now is something scheduling can sometimes work around and the same deadline raised at offer stage usually is not

How to prepare

• Write each constraint down in one line before the call and state them as facts rather than negotiating them live under a question you were not expecting
• Set your range from two or three current data points for that level and location, and name the structure you are quoting in, so the number is comparable to the one they are holding
• If another process is running, say where it stands and by when, and ask directly whether this loop can be scheduled inside that window

Technical Interview

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

• In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
• In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
• Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

• Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
• Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
• For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first

Onsite Interviews

Nobody in the room with you decides this. Interviewers typically write their rounds up separately, often before seeing anyone else's, and the outcome is settled later from those write-ups. A split panel gets resolved by whichever note carries specific evidence, so what you want out of each room is one concrete thing that person could write down: a bug you caught yourself, a trade-off you named, a decision you owned. The rest is arithmetic. The project you describe in a behavioural conversation is often the same system you sketched an hour earlier, and the two accounts have to agree.

What to demonstrate

• Whether the scale, team size and timeline you attach to a project hold steady when that project resurfaces in a different round
• Whether each interviewer leaves with a specific thing to cite rather than a general impression of competence
• Whether a trade-off you defended in one round survives a challenge in another, instead of being quietly swapped for the answer the new interviewer seemed to want
• Whether a question you have already answered earlier in the day gets the same answer at the same depth, without visible impatience

How to prepare

• Write a one-page sheet per project fixing the figures you will quote — request volume, data size, team size, elapsed time, what broke — and say them aloud from the sheet until they come out identical every time
• For each round on the schedule, decide in advance the one sentence you want in that person's notes, then check in a mock that you said it outright instead of leaving it to be inferred
• Have someone ask you the same project question twice, an hour apart, and diff the two answers for numbers that moved or a trade-off that reversed

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.

Shipping a migration and the code that depends on it as a single change

During any rolling deploy, and for as long as a rollback remains possible, old and new code execute against the same schema at the same time. A migration that drops or renames a column breaks every instance that has not restarted yet, and code that requires a column the migration has not applied breaks every instance that restarted early. The discipline is expand then contract: add the new column nullable, write both shapes, backfill in batches, move reads across once the backfill is verified, and only then stop writing the old shape and drop it - four deploys, usually spread over days. It feels disproportionate until the first rollback, at which point it is the only reason the previous version still runs.

Check-then-act on shared state

Read, decide, write is not safe under concurrency unless the decision and the write are one atomic step: a unique constraint with conflict handling, a compare-and-set, or a row lock held for the whole transaction. Two requests can both pass the existence check before either inserts, which shows up as duplicate rows under load and never in a single-threaded test.

Sorting when the problem never required a total order

Match the algorithm to the guarantee actually needed: the top k comes from a size-k heap in O(n log k) time and O(k) space, distinctness needs a set rather than an ordering, and a small bounded integer key range admits a linear counting pass. A full O(n log n) sort is the right default only when you genuinely need everything in order.

Questions & practice

Explain how you keep yourself updated with the latest trends in machine learning.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you handle overfitting in a machine learning model?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

1. Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
2. Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
3. Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.

Follow-up

• What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?
• Where could label leakage enter this setup?

If tasked with improving the accuracy of a model, what steps would you undertake?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Discuss a machine learning project you led and the challenges you faced.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

1. Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
2. State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
3. 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?
• Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Solve a coding problem related to data manipulation (e.g., using pandas in Python).

Medium · coding and algorithms

Approach

1. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
2. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
3. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.

Follow-up

• What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
• Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?

Write a function to implement a k-nearest neighbors algorithm.

Medium · coding and algorithms

Approach

1. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
2. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
3. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

• What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
• Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?

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.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Write the serialiser: recursive emit with a depth counter, objects sorted by UTF-8 key bytes, arrays in order, strings escaped by one fixed rule, numbers emitted as their original token.
2. Run it over three bodies: the same object with keys reordered, the same object with \u0041 written as A, and one with a nested array reversed. The first two must produce identical bytes and the third must not.
3. Take the id 9007199254740993, round-trip it through a double, show it returns as 9007199254740992, then state the rule that prevents this.
4. Define the hash preimage explicitly with its delimiters, and construct a pair of (path, body) inputs that would collide without them.

Expected result: A canonicaliser that is O(n log n) in body size with an enforced depth cap, sorts keys by UTF-8 byte order, preserves array order, keeps number literals verbatim, rejects duplicate keys, and feeds a delimited preimage to SHA-256, together with a stated list of normalisations deliberately not performed and the failure each would cause.

Verify it yourself

• Key reordering and whitespace changes produce identical fingerprints while reordering an array does not.
• A body containing an integer above 2^53 fingerprints identically after a parse and re-serialise round trip.
• Two requests differing only in a field the endpoint ignores produce different fingerprints, and you can say why that is the safe direction to err.

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?

Explain why the owner filter ignores the listing index

Medium · composite index · query plans · sort elimination

The only index on resource is (tenant_id, status, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC). A new endpoint returns one user's resources across all statuses, newest created first: WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND owner_user_id = $2 ORDER BY created_at DESC LIMIT 20. On a tenant with 2M rows it takes 900 ms and EXPLAIN shows a sort above a large scan. Explain precisely why the existing index cannot serve it, give the index that can, and state which of these the new index still will not help: owner_user_id alone across tenants; the same query ordered by updated_at. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

1. Separate the two jobs an index does. For filtering, a composite btree is seekable only on a left prefix, so with no predicate on status the scan can at best range over tenant_id and test owner_user_id per row; PostgreSQL 16 has no btree skip scan to jump the unconstrained column.
2. For ordering, the index is sorted by (status, updated_at) within a tenant and not by created_at, so the LIMIT cannot stop early: every matching row is read and then sorted. That is the 'Sort Method: top-N heapsort' line, and it is why the plan reads 2M rows to answer with 20.
3. Derive the replacement from the access path — equality, equality, then the ordering column: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ON resource (tenant_id, owner_user_id, created_at DESC). The scan seeks to the (tenant, owner) range and walks 20 entries in order, so the Sort node disappears along with the row-read.
4. Treat INCLUDE (title, status) as conditional, not free. An index-only scan still visits the heap for any row whose page is not marked all-visible, so on a table taking 1.2k writes/second the win depends on autovacuum keeping the visibility map current, and the wider index costs more on every insert.
5. Answer the two negatives explicitly. owner_user_id alone is not a left prefix of the new index, so it degrades to a full scan of the index at best. Ordered by updated_at, the query still seeks on the (tenant, owner) pair but must sort, because only created_at is ordered within that pair.
6. Measure both sides with EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) and compare estimated against actual rows at the lowest node — a 2M-versus-200 misestimate there is usually what chose the plan, and adding an index will not fix a statistics problem.

Follow-up

• 90% of rows are status='active'. Would a partial index WHERE status = 'active' change your answer, and for which of the three queries?
• A dashboard runs this for 40 owners in one page load. What changes about the design?
• How do you roll this index out on a table taking 1.2k writes/second, and what does it cost on every insert from then on?

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.

Worked solution (20 min)

1. Create the PostgreSQL partial unique index, insert a live row, soft delete it, and insert the same address again.
2. Repeat the delete-and-reinsert cycle three times and confirm three deleted rows coexist with exactly one live row.
3. Write the MySQL form with the discriminator, then deliberately reverse the polarity so live rows carry NULL, and show two live duplicates commit.
4. Attempt a second live insert on both engines and map the resulting 23505 / ER_DUP_ENTRY to the 409 the handler should return.

Expected result: PostgreSQL rejects only the second live row and admits unlimited deleted ones. MySQL behaves identically with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker) where live = 0; with the polarity reversed, two live rows commit and nothing afterwards can tell them apart.

Verify it yourself

• Group live rows by (tenant_id, lower(email)) after a randomised insert/delete run — no group exceeds one.
• Inserting 'User@x.test' after 'user@x.test' is rejected; if it is accepted, the case handling is in application code rather than in the index.
• EXPLAIN a login lookup and confirm the partial index is chosen — it is only usable by queries that carry the deleted_at IS NULL predicate, so a query without it falls back to a scan.

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 would you design a recommendation system for job postings?

Medium · ml system design and production

Approach

1. Separate the offline training path from the online serving path.
2. Fix the product goal and the online metric before choosing any model.
3. 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?

Explain how you would approach the architecture of a real-time data processing system.

Medium · system design

Approach

1. Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.
2. Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
3. Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.

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?

Given a dataset with missing values, how would you handle it?

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Rebuild the search projection while it serves nine thousand queries

Medium · projections · eventual consistency · rebuild · watermark

The read-model service answers about 9k queries/second at a 120 ms p99 from a projection built off the event log, normally under 2 seconds behind. A mapping change forces a full rebuild from resource_revision, during which apply lag rises to minutes. Writes continue at 1.2k/second and events at 4k/second. Design the rebuild: how the new index is populated and cut over, how position is tracked per log partition, what the API returns alongside results so a client can tell a stale answer from a current one, and the criterion for cutting over.

Approach

1. Build into a second index and swap an alias rather than mutating the live one. The rebuild is then reversible by pointing the alias back, so a bad mapping costs a wasted rebuild instead of an outage. The price is peak storage for two full copies and double apply load during catch-up, and both numbers should be stated up front rather than discovered when disk fills.
2. Track position per log partition, not globally. Order is guaranteed only within an aggregate's partition, so progress is a vector, and the only number safe to publish is taken from the least advanced partition - the slowest one is what bounds completeness. Publishing the most advanced partition's position declares the projection current while another partition sits twenty minutes behind.
3. Make apply idempotent so the backfill and the live tail can overlap without a freeze. Each document records the aggregate_version it reflects, and any event at or below that version is discarded. This is why the event carries the full fact and not a delta: a delta cannot be discarded safely, and a consumer that calls back to read current state applies a state newer than the event it is processing, which is how a projection ends up with changes applied out of order.
4. Turn lag into a contract instead of a surprise. Return the watermark with every result set, and return the version produced by a write so the client can compare the two. A client that wrote version 7 and receives results at a watermark older than its own commit can show that its change is still landing, rather than rendering the previous value as current. Blocking the read until the projection catches up would convert a staleness problem into an availability problem at 9k queries/second, and choosing not to do that is the trade.
5. Define the cutover numerically. Writes are untouched by the rebuild - they commit to the primary and land in the outbox - so the only coupling is apply throughput. If catch-up applies slower than the 4k events/second arriving, it never converges. The cutover criterion is that lag is measurably decreasing and below a stated threshold, not that the backfill loop reached the end of its range.

Worked solution (30 min)

1. Write the rebuild sequence: snapshot source, populate the second index, attach the live tail, verify, swap alias, retire the old index - naming what is reversible at each step.
2. Define the per-partition position record and the single watermark derived from it, and show what each would report when one partition stalls.
3. Write the idempotent apply rule using the document's recorded aggregate_version, and replay one event twice against it.
4. State the cutover threshold in lag terms and the measurement that shows convergence rather than completion.

Expected result: A parallel index populated from resource_revision snapshots plus the live tail, cut over by an alias swap that is reversible. Position is stored per log partition and the published watermark comes from the least advanced one. Apply is idempotent on the document's recorded aggregate_version, so backfill and tail can overlap without a freeze. Results carry the watermark and writes return their version so clients can detect staleness. Cutover happens when lag is decreasing and under the stated threshold.

Verify it yourself

• Applying the same event twice leaves the document unchanged.
• The published watermark never advances past the least advanced partition.
• Pointing the alias back restores previous behaviour with no reindex.
• Catch-up rate exceeds the 4k events/second arrival rate before cutover, shown by the lag trend rather than by the loop finishing.

Follow-up

• The rebuilt index disagrees with the primary tables for 300 documents. Which is authoritative, and how do you decide without freezing writes?
• The rebuild doubles load on the log and pushes the projection p99 from 120 ms to 400 ms. What do you throttle, and which signal sets how much?
• Clients start polling until the watermark passes their write. What does that do at 9k queries/second, and what do you offer instead?

Edge instances grow 400 MB per hour until the nightly restart

Hard · memory leak · heap analysis · metric cardinality · gc

Edge API instances start at 700 MB resident and grow about 400 MB/hour; a nightly rolling restart has hidden it for weeks. Growth continues unchanged when request rate halves overnight, p99 degrades in the last hours before an instance is recycled, and heap used immediately after a forced full GC rises monotonically. The service holds no product state. Name the discriminating measurement that separates the plausible causes, give the most likely cause, and give the fix and how you would verify it.

Approach

1. Separate resident memory from live heap first, because they fail differently. Resident size can grow from fragmentation, native buffers or thread stacks while the heap is flat; heap used after a full GC rising monotonically is the measurement that says objects are reachable and not being released. You already have it, so this is retention, not fragmentation, and that closes off half the candidate list.
2. Use the rate's independence from traffic as the discriminator. Growth that continues at half the request rate rules out per-request objects that are merely slow to collect and points at a structure that grows with distinct values observed rather than with call volume. Write the candidates that have that property: a metrics registry keyed on a high-cardinality label, an unevicted cache, an interner, a per-key lock map.
3. Take two heap snapshots an hour apart and diff by retained size, reading the dominator tree, not by allocation count or instance count. Expect one root holding a map with millions of entries, then follow the reference chain to the code that inserts and never removes. Allocation profilers point at churn, which is the wrong signal here.
4. The candidate that fits this service is an observability label carrying an identifier, such as a request path recorded before templating so that /v1/resources/48213 becomes its own metric series. That grows with distinct ids seen, is independent of rate, and explains the late p99 degradation, since GC cost rises with the size of the live set.
5. Fix by bounding cardinality at the source: template the path to /v1/resources/{id} before it becomes a label, move tenant id from a label to a log field or an exemplar, and cap the registry with a bounded map that evicts. Add a cardinality ceiling that fails loudly in a lower environment rather than growing quietly in production.
6. Verify with a soak rather than a restart. Hold one instance out of the nightly recycle for 48 hours with the fix and compare post-GC heap and series count against an unfixed control taking the same traffic.

Follow-up

• Post-GC heap is now flat but resident size still creeps. What are you looking at, and does it matter?
• How would you have detected this before an OOM, given the nightly restart masked the trend?
• That label is what makes one dashboard useful. How do you keep the dashboard and lose the leak?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone who has spent the last few years shipping features and reading other people's code, and who has not solved a timed problem from a blank file in a long time. Five days rebuild the primitives and the patterns that sit on them, working from invariants rather than remembered solutions, and the last two attach that back to the rest of the loop.

Day 1 — Rebuild the primitives by implementing them

• Implement a dynamic array with doubling growth and an operation counter, then change the growth rule to add a fixed sixteen slots instead, and time both for n of ten thousand, a hundred thousand and a million. The fixed-increment version resizes n/16 times at O(n) each, so its total work is quadratic; doubling is what makes append amortised constant.
• Implement a hash map with separate chaining and a load-factor resize, then insert ten thousand keys engineered to land in one bucket and record what happens to lookup time, so that average-case O(1) becomes a claim with a stated precondition rather than a reflex.
• For dynamic-array append and hash-map insert, write down which cost is amortised rather than worst-case, which single operation pays the whole bill, and what a system with a hard per-operation deadline would have to do instead.

Deliverable: Two working implementations plus a timing table showing the input at which each structure's advertised complexity stops holding.

Day 2 — Arrays under an invariant: two pointers, sliding window, binary search

• Solve longest-subarray-with-sum-at-most-K using a sliding window, then run it on an input containing negative numbers and watch it return the wrong answer: extending the window only moves the sum monotonically when every element is non-negative, and that precondition is the whole reason the technique works.
• Write the binary search that finds the first index satisfying a predicate rather than an exact value, put the loop invariant above the loop in a comment, and verify termination on the two inputs that break careless versions: the empty range, and a range where every element satisfies the predicate.
• Compute the midpoint as lo + (hi - lo) / 2 and write one line on why the obvious (lo + hi) / 2 is a genuine defect in a fixed-width integer type and a non-issue in a language with arbitrary-precision integers.

Deliverable: Three solved problems, each with its invariant written above the loop, plus one recorded input on which the sliding window is provably wrong.

Day 3 — Sorting, heaps, and the greedy argument that has to be proved

• Solve one top-k problem three ways, by full sort, by a size-k heap, and by quickselect, then write the values of n and k at which each becomes the right choice, along with quickselect's quadratic worst case and why a randomised pivot makes that unlikely rather than impossible.
• Implement bottom-up heapify and count sift-down steps to confirm it does linear work rather than n log n, because most nodes sit near the bottom of the tree and therefore move only a short distance.
• Take interval scheduling by earliest finishing time and write the exchange argument out in full: given any optimal schedule, swapping in the earliest-finishing interval keeps it feasible and no smaller. Then construct the weighted variant where that same greedy fails and name what has to replace it.

Deliverable: A three-way top-k comparison with measured crossover points, one written exchange argument, and one counterexample to a greedy rule that looks almost identical.

Day 4 — Recursion, memoisation, and the step to a table

• Take one problem with overlapping subproblems, such as edit distance or coin change, instrument the plain recursion with a call counter to show the blow-up, then add memoisation and re-count.
• Convert the memoised version to a bottom-up table and state the two properties you relied on: each subproblem's result depends only on its arguments, and the dependencies form a DAG you can enumerate in order.
• Rewrite one deep recursion with an explicit stack, then find the input length at which the original hits the interpreter's frame limit, which defaults to about a thousand frames in CPython, so you know when the rewrite is required rather than decorative.

Deliverable: One problem in three forms, naive, memoised and tabulated, with call counts for each and the input length at which recursion depth becomes the binding constraint.

Day 5 — Graphs, where most of the work is choosing the traversal

• Implement BFS and DFS over one adjacency list, then answer for each which finds a shortest path in an unweighted graph and which you would use to detect a cycle in a directed graph, including why the in-progress versus finished distinction matters for the second.
• Implement topological sort by in-degree, feed it a graph containing a cycle, and confirm the failure signature is that fewer than V nodes come out rather than an exception, then note that the order it produces is one of several valid ones.
• Run a shortest-path search on a graph with a single negative edge weight and show the wrong answer, then write the precondition Dijkstra actually needs, non-negative weights, because it finalises a node's distance the first time that node is popped, and name the algorithm you would switch to and its own limit.

Deliverable: A small graph library with BFS, DFS and topological sort, plus two inputs that produce documented wrong answers under the wrong algorithm choice.

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not an algorithm

• Sketch one system only to the depth a coding-heavy loop tends to reach: the endpoints, what the service stores, and the single query pattern that decides the schema. Stop at twenty-five minutes.
• Prepare the project answer for an interviewer who codes, which means rehearsing the two levels they push to: the specific thing you built, and why you chose that approach over the alternative they will name. Open with a number and be ready to say what it excludes.
• Prepare the answer to what you would do differently, choosing a real technical mistake with a specific fix rather than a complaint about process or staffing.

Deliverable: One design sketch at endpoint-and-schema depth, plus a project answer rehearsed to two levels of follow-up.

Day 7 — Solve out loud, under time

• Do three timed problems at twenty-five minutes each in a plain editor with no autocomplete and no execution until the end, then tally separately the failures that were syntax and the ones that were approach, because those two numbers call for different fixes.
• Narrate one solution from the first sentence, stating the approach and its complexity before writing any code, and rehearse the sentence you will use when you realise mid-solution that the approach is wrong.
• Re-solve from blank the two problems you were slowest on this week and compare the times against the day they first appeared.

Deliverable: A recording of one fully narrated solution and a tally that separates syntax failures from approach failures.

The failure that was yours

Keep one story where the bad call was yours rather than a dependency's or a manager's. Name the check that would have caught it, whether you added that check afterwards, and whether it has fired since. Answers that route blame outward end the conversation early; answers that end in a guardrail someone still relies on tend to open it up.

How do you prioritize tasks when working on multiple projects?

Medium · behavioural and collaboration

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

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?

Unblock an engineer without taking the keyboard

Easy · mentoring · leases · at-least-once

A teammate has spent two days on a job handler that occasionally writes duplicate rows. They are certain the queue is delivering twice by mistake. You suspect a lease expiring under a slow handler, so the job is running concurrently with itself. Describe how you have unblocked someone in this position: what you asked before offering a hypothesis, what you showed them rather than told them, and what you left them owning. Then say what you would do if their theory turned out to be the right one.

Approach

1. Ask before diagnosing, and ask for things answerable from data they already have: the attempt count on the job rows that produced duplicates, the handler's observed duration against its lease expiry, and whether the duplicate rows share a natural key that a unique constraint could have caught.
2. Teach the shape rather than the answer. A lease cannot distinguish a dead worker from a slow one, so a handler that outruns its lease is running twice by design, and deploys deliver the other half by killing handlers mid-run on every rollout. Both of their candidate theories produce identical duplicate rows, which is why the evidence has to come from timings rather than from argument.
3. Hand over a checklist they execute: a natural key on every write the handler performs so the second copy collides rather than appends, the record of intent written before any external effect, a lease heartbeat while running, and the metric that shows it working.
4. Keep ownership with them deliberately. Pair on the first write, then step back; if you finish it yourself you have closed one ticket and left the same person stuck on the next redelivery.
5. Close on the systemic gap that let two days pass, which is usually a missing dashboard for attempt counts or an undocumented at-least-once contract, and fix that rather than only the bug.

Follow-up

• How would you distinguish a genuine double-delivery from a lease expiry using only the data already stored?
• Their handler calls an external endpoint before recording that it did. What do you tell them to change first?
• What do you do the third time the same person brings you the same class of bug?