GSK Machine Learning Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

A Machine Learning Engineer at GSK plays a pivotal role in bridging the gap between advanced artificial intelligence research and practical, life-saving healthcare applications. At GSK, machine learning is not just an optimization tool; it is a core driver of modern drug discovery, vaccine development, and genomic analysis. By designing, building, and scaling robust machine learning models, you directly contribute to reducing the time and cost required to bring critical medicines to patients globally.

Seniority moves the scope further than the words in the title do. An earlier-career loop mostly checks that you implement something correctly and can reason about its cost, while a senior loop checks that you can pick between two defensible designs and say what you gave up.

Focus areas

• Choose indexes from the query's access path
• Trace a symptom to a mechanism under load
• Make every write idempotent under retry

Overview

In this role, you will work alongside computational biologists, chemists, data engineers, and clinical researchers to transform complex biological data into actionable insights. This involves handling massive, high-dimensional datasets, including genomic sequences, chemical structures, and clinical trial results. Your primary focus will be on developing scalable training pipelines, optimizing deep learning architectures, and ensuring that models are successfully deployed and integrated into production-level scientific workflows.

The work is highly interdisciplinary and technically demanding, requiring a deep understanding of both software engineering best practices and cutting-edge machine learning theory. Succeeding as a at means writing clean, reproducible code that can run efficiently at scale, while remaining curious about the complex scientific domains your models are helping to decode.

The GSK interview process

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

Automated 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

Structured Conversations

You cannot drill a format you do not know, so put the preparation into material that travels. Three pieces of your own work, each rehearsed until you can take a follow-up you did not anticipate, will carry a conversation or a code walkthrough equally well. Specificity is what separates that from filler. A number needs its definition before it means anything: a p99 is over some window and measured at some hop, and a server-side figure excludes the queueing and network time a client would see. The number you cannot qualify is the one to leave out.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your examples carry detail only someone who did the work would hold, such as what the binding constraint actually was, which alternative you rejected and why it was worse, and what you measured on each side of the change
• Whether a number survives one follow-up, meaning you can say what it was measured over and whether it moved because of your change or merely alongside it
• Whether a failure is described with the specific change that followed it, rather than a lesson stated in general terms
• Whether your part in a team effort is stated accurately, including what other people did

How to prepare

• Write a page on each of three projects covering the constraint, the option you rejected, the measurement before and after, and what went wrong. Cut any line you cannot take a follow-up on, since you are writing the parts you will be pressed on rather than a summary.
• Recover the real figures while you still have access: request volume, data size, latency with its percentile and window, team size, timeline. Note where each came from, whether a dashboard, a design document or memory, and mark the estimates so you can say which they are out loud.
• Take your weakest project story to someone who works in a different area and have them ask why four times in succession. The point where you run out of answer is the part to go and re-read before the round.

Final Stages

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Where candidates lose points

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.

Running a schema change as though the lock lasts as long as the statement

In PostgreSQL an ALTER TABLE that needs an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock must first wait for every open transaction touching that table, and while it waits, later queries needing a conflicting lock queue behind it rather than overtaking it. A DDL statement that would execute in milliseconds, issued while a thirty-second analytics query is open, therefore stalls all traffic on that table for thirty seconds: the outage length is set by the longest open transaction, not by the change. The defences are specific and worth knowing by name - set lock_timeout low and retry rather than queue, add columns without a volatile default so no table rewrite occurs (from version 11 a non-volatile default is a metadata-only change), build indexes with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY while accepting that it cannot run inside a transaction block and leaves an invalid index behind if it fails, and add constraints as NOT VALID followed by a separate VALIDATE CONSTRAINT, which takes a weaker lock.

Naming no test cases at all

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

A queue or buffer with no bound

Every producer-consumer boundary needs a capacity and a policy for reaching it: block the producer, shed load, or drop the oldest entry. Unbounded buffering converts a temporary slowdown into memory exhaustion and hides the backpressure signal that would have revealed the consumer was falling behind.

Questions & practice

What are the architectural differences between a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and a Transformer model when processing sequential data?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

1. State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
2. Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
3. 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?

Walk me through the mechanics of backpropagation in a multi-layer perceptron. How do vanishing and exploding gradients occur, and how do you mitigate them?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

1. Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
2. Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
3. 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?
• Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Describe how you would evaluate a binary classification model trained on a highly imbalanced medical dataset. Which metrics would you prioritize?

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

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

Implement a custom PyTorch dataset class that reads, batches, and tokenizes sequence data for a deep learning model.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Given an array of integers, write an efficient algorithm to find the longest contiguous subarray with a sum equal to a target value.

Medium · coding and algorithms

Approach

1. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
2. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
3. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.

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?

Explain how you would optimize a slow-running Python script that processes large text files containing clinical trial notes.

Medium · coding and algorithms

Approach

1. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
2. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
3. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.

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?

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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)

1. 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.
2. 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.
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.
4. 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?

Denormalise tenant onto revisions and backfill it live

Hard · denormalisation · online migration · backfill

resource_revision (revision_id, resource_id, version, actor_user_id, change_kind, patch, request_id, created_at) has 400M rows and no tenant column; tenant_id lives only on resource. Two reads need it: a tenant-scoped audit feed ordered by created_at DESC, and an offboarding purge. Both join back to resource today. Justify adding tenant_id to resource_revision against those two reads, name the anomaly the copy introduces and the constraint that prevents it, then give the ordered migration for a live table taking 1.2k writes/second — the lock each step takes, how the backfill is batched, and where each step stops being reversible. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

1. Justify from the access path rather than from taste. Without the column, the audit feed either scans resource_revision by created_at and discards other tenants' rows, or resolves the tenant's resource_ids first and probes with them — both proportional to the tenant's whole history rather than to one page. With (tenant_id, created_at DESC, revision_id DESC) it is a seek that stops at 50 rows, and the purge becomes a ranged delete instead of a join.
2. Name the cost exactly: a second copy of a fact can disagree with the first. Make the disagreement unwritable rather than documented — add UNIQUE (resource_id, tenant_id) on resource so it can serve as a foreign-key target, then FOREIGN KEY (resource_id, tenant_id) REFERENCES resource (resource_id, tenant_id) on the revision table. A revision can then only ever carry its parent's tenant.
3. Step one, expand: ALTER TABLE resource_revision ADD COLUMN tenant_id BIGINT NULL, with no default, so it is a catalogue change and no rewrite. It still needs ACCESS EXCLUSIVE for an instant, and that instant queues behind the longest open transaction on the table while every later query queues behind it — set lock_timeout to 2s and retry rather than wait.
4. Step two, dual-write: deploy the writer that populates tenant_id on every new revision while reads still use the join. Reversible by redeploying the previous build, because nothing reads the column yet.
5. Step three, backfill: batch by primary key rather than by created_at so the cursor is dense and resumable — UPDATE resource_revision rr SET tenant_id = r.tenant_id FROM resource r WHERE r.resource_id = rr.resource_id AND rr.revision_id > $1 AND rr.revision_id <= $1 + 5000 AND rr.tenant_id IS NULL — committing per batch and persisting the cursor. Throttle on replica replay lag and on dead-tuple count, since each batch writes 5,000 new row versions. Run the backfill before the index exists so those updates can stay HOT.
6. Step four, index then enforce then contract: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (cannot run inside a transaction block, scans the table twice, waits on open transactions, and leaves an INVALID index to drop concurrently if it fails); ADD CONSTRAINT ... CHECK (tenant_id IS NOT NULL) NOT VALID, then VALIDATE CONSTRAINT, which takes only SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, after which SET NOT NULL uses the validated check instead of re-scanning on PostgreSQL 12 and later. Only then move the audit reads onto the column and, in a later deploy, delete the join path.

Follow-up

• The backfill is half finished and a rollback is required. What state is the table in, and what does the previous build do with a half-populated column?
• How do you verify the backfill actually finished, given rows are still being inserted while it runs?
• A resource must now be movable between tenants. What does that do to the composite foreign key and to the revisions already written?

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?

Tell me about a time you had to optimize a model's inference latency for a real-time production application. What trade-offs did you make?

Medium · ml system design and production

Approach

1. Separate the offline training path from the online serving path.
2. Name what you would monitor after launch and what triggers a retrain.
3. Fix the product goal and the online metric before choosing any model.

Follow-up

• How would you detect drift before the metric drops?
• What happens when a feature is missing at serving time?

How would you design a scalable pipeline to continuously train and redeploy models as new clinical data becomes available?

Medium · system design

Approach

1. Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
2. Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
3. State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.

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?

Choose what to break when replication lag reaches forty seconds

Hard · replication lag · read-after-write · consistency vs availability · load shedding

Reads are served from two replicas: 14k requests/second, about 85% absorbed by cache, so roughly 2.1k reads/second reach the database. Writes go to the primary at 1.2k/second. A tenant's backfill drives replication lag from under 100 ms to 40 seconds and it is still climbing. Sessions that have just written are pinned to the primary. Decide, endpoint class by endpoint class, whether to serve stale, fail, or route to the primary, and justify each choice with the load it adds to the primary. Then state what you would have built beforehand.

Approach

1. Establish blast radius before cause, because mitigation and diagnosis have different deadlines. The decisive arithmetic is what happens if the database reads move to the primary: 2.1k reads/second on top of 1.2k writes/second roughly triples its operation count, on the node already absorbing the backfill that caused this. Reads and writes are not equal in cost, so treat that as an argument against a blanket move rather than as a capacity model - but it is enough to rule out routing everything to the primary.
2. Classify endpoints by what staleness costs, not by how important they feel. Reads whose staleness is invisible - listings, search, counters - stay on the replica and return the watermark so the client can tell. Reads that immediately follow that same session's write keep their primary pin, which is a small bounded slice of traffic rather than the whole 2.1k/second. Reads that feed a decision with a side effect - authorisation, quota, the read half of a read-modify-write - must not be stale at all, because a 40-second-old permission row is the stale-permission failure wearing a different costume; those go to the primary or fail.
3. Shed instead of queueing. If the must-be-fresh class alone exceeds the primary's headroom, refuse its lowest-value slice with 503 and a retry-after. A request queued behind a saturated primary holds a connection for a client that has already given up, and the retry storm that follows is what turns degradation into an outage. Bound the connection pool per role so the read fallback cannot consume the write path's connections - that bulkhead is the single decision that determines whether writes survive the next ten minutes.
4. Attack the cause in parallel, since it is the one thing that can be stopped. The backfill is the load generator. A backfill that reads replication lag as its throttle signal and pauses above a threshold would have made this a non-event, with batch sizes small enough that each batch's write volume is a fraction of what a replica can apply per second. That is most of the answer to what should have existed beforehand.
5. Name the mechanism you would prefer over session pinning. Capture the write position at commit and require the read path to be at or past it: compare the primary's pg_current_wal_lsn() at commit time against the replica's pg_last_wal_replay_lsn(), and fall back to the primary only for the specific request that is ahead of the replica. Session pinning is the cheap approximation and it over-pins - every read in the window goes to the primary whether or not it needed to, which is a share of the cost being paid right now.

Worked solution (35 min)

1. List the endpoints in three buckets - staleness invisible, staleness visible to the writer only, staleness unsafe - and attach the share of the 2.1k reads/second each bucket carries.
2. Compute the primary's operation count under each routing option and mark which options are arithmetically available.
3. Write the pin rule and its window, then the shed rule: which slice, what status code, what retry-after.
4. Write the backfill's throttle predicate against a measured lag value, including its pause threshold and resume condition.

Expected result: Staleness-invisible reads stay on the replica and return a watermark. Reads following the session's own write keep a bounded primary pin. Reads that gate a side effect go to the primary or fail, with the lowest-value slice shed as 503 plus retry-after if headroom runs out. Connection pools are bounded per role so the read fallback cannot starve writes. The backfill is throttled on measured replication lag. The durable fix is a commit-position token compared against the replica's replay position, replacing blanket session pinning.

Verify it yourself

• The traffic routed to the primary under the plan is stated as a rate, not as a category.
• No element of the plan increases the write path's connection usage.
• The backfill throttle references a measured lag value and has an explicit resume condition.
• Every endpoint left on a replica returns something with which a client can detect staleness.

Follow-up

• Lag returns to normal in nine minutes. Which mitigation do you remove first, and which one stays permanently?
• A user reports their change did not save, and the write committed. Trace the path that produces that report and name the signal that would have shown it before the report arrived.
• The replica is 40 seconds behind but otherwise healthy. Do you take it out of rotation? What does that do to the other replica's lag?

p99 jumped on one listing filter while p50 stayed flat

Medium · query planning · composite index · percentiles · tail latency

After a release that added an owner_user_id filter to the resource listing, p99 rose from 90 ms to 1.9 s while p50 stayed at 40 ms. Traffic and row counts are unchanged. resource carries the index (tenant_id, status, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC). The new query filters tenant_id and owner_user_id, orders by updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC, and takes 20 rows. On PostgreSQL, explain the shape of the regression, prove it from a query plan, and give the index you would add.

Approach

1. Start from the shape. A flat p50 with a moved p99 means a subset of requests changed cost, not all of them, so the first job is naming the subset. Bucket the endpoint's latency by the tenant's row count; the natural hypothesis is that large tenants are a small share of requests and all of the tail.
2. Get the plan for the new query on a large tenant with EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS). Expect an index scan over the tenant's range, a filter discarding most of it, then a Sort feeding the Limit, possibly reporting Sort Method: external merge Disk. Read actual rows on the scan node, not estimated.
3. Explain why the existing index cannot serve it. A composite B-tree is seekable only as a left prefix, and with no equality predicate on status the scan cannot treat updated_at as an ordering, because rows in the tenant's range are ordered by status first. Everything matching must be read and sorted before LIMIT 20 can apply, so a tenant with 400,000 rows pays 400,000 rows to return 20.
4. Add (tenant_id, owner_user_id, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC). Equality on the first two columns leaves the index ordered by updated_at within that pair, so the plan becomes an index scan that stops after 20 rows with no Sort node. PostgreSQL can scan a B-tree backwards, so the DESC markers matter only if the two sort columns ever disagree in direction; keeping them explicit documents the order the keyset cursor depends on.
5. Price the fix. This is a fourth index on a table taking about 1.2k writes/second, and every insert and version bump maintains it. Justify it against the query it serves, and check whether it makes an existing index redundant, which here it does not, since the original still serves the status-filtered default listing.
6. Re-measure per tenant-size bucket rather than in aggregate. A fleet-wide p99 can improve while the largest tenant is still on the old plan.

Follow-up

• The endpoint paginates with OFFSET. What does page 500 cost with your index, and what does the keyset version cost?
• How would you have caught this before release, given that a 10,000-row seed database produces the same plan shape at an unnoticeable cost?
• If a fourth index were unacceptable on write grounds, what else could serve this query?

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.

'We rewrote it in a better framework' is not a story

A migration is a cost you chose to pay, not an achievement. The story is what the old system made expensive, what you measured before committing, what kept serving traffic during the cutover, and what you would have done if the numbers had come back flat. Without those, a rewrite reads as taste.

Describe your experience with containerization (e.g., Docker) and orchestration (e.g., Kubernetes) in the context of deploying ML workloads.

Medium · behavioural and collaboration

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Estimate work you have never done and defend the range

Hard · estimation · backfills · expand-contract

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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?