cswork / libraryOpen practice workspace

Interview guides · Harvey Nash Group

Harvey Nash Group Software Engineer Interview Guide

Harvey Nash Group Software Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, questions and how candidates describe the process.

The 60-second brief

Harvey Nash Group hires Software Engineers; this guide collects what candidates report about the process.

This guide is scoped to a Software Engineer candidate at Harvey Nash Group.

Focus areas

  • Python
  • Golang (Go)
  • Programming (code writing tasks)

The Harvey Nash Group interview process

Harvey Nash Group candidates report 4 rounds over 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Introductory Session

A 'get to know you' session to discuss your background.

What to demonstrate

  • A 'get to know you' session to discuss your background
  • Depth in Python

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: Can you explain key OOPS concepts and how you implement them in your daily work?
  • Answer aloud and timed: What are the primary differences between Python and Golang in the context of high-performance microservices?

Technical Phone Screen

Technical assessment conducted via phone or video call.

What to demonstrate

  • Technical assessment conducted via phone or video call
  • Depth in Python

How to prepare

  • Be able to walk your CV end to end in two minutes, and say why this company specifically.
  • Have your salary expectations, notice period and location constraints ready, and ask for the rest of the loop in writing.

Practical Task

A coding exercise where you write and compile code.

What to demonstrate

  • A coding exercise where you write and compile code
  • Depth in Python

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you ensure your code remains maintainable and scalable as project requirements evolve?
  • Answer aloud and timed: How would you structure a program to handle high-concurrency data processing?

Architecture Discussion

A deeper dive into the architecture and logic of your coding submission.

What to demonstrate

  • A deeper dive into the architecture and logic of your coding submission
  • Depth in Python

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: Given a specific task, how do you prioritize features versus technical debt?
  • Answer aloud and timed: Can you walk me through your logic for solving a recent technical challenge you faced?

Where candidates lose points

Structure your answers

When answering behavioral or situational questions, use the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) to keep your responses focused and impactful.

Be ready for technical deep-dives

If you mention a specific technology on your CV, be prepared to explain its internals, not just how to use it.

Focus on the "Why

During coding tasks, explain your decision-making process out loud. Interviewers at Harvey Nash Group value your thought process as much as the final output.

Avoid over-complicating your solutions

Simple, readable, and efficient code is almost always preferred over clever, unreadable one-liners.

Questions & practice

How would you structure a program to handle high-concurrency data processing?

Medium · Problem-Solving & Coding Tasks

Approach

  1. Say what the runtime actually does before reasoning about the code.
  2. Name what is shared across threads and what owns each piece of state.
  3. Identify the window where an invariant is briefly untrue.
  4. Distinguish a value from a reference to it, and say which one you handed out.

Follow-up

  • What happens if two callers reach this at the same time?
  • Where could this allocate more than you expect?

Given a specific task, how do you prioritize features versus technical debt?

Medium · Problem-Solving & Coding Tasks

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. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  4. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

  • How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?

Can you walk me through your logic for solving a recent technical challenge you faced?

Medium · Problem-Solving & Coding Tasks

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. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  4. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

  • How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?

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.

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?

Replace offset paging on the resource feed with keyset

Easy · keyset pagination · composite index · sort order

resource holds resource_id, tenant_id, owner_user_id, title, body_ref, version, status ('draft','active','archived','deleted'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at, with an index on (tenant_id, status, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC). The listing endpoint returns active resources for one tenant, newest update first, 50 per page, today with LIMIT 50 OFFSET n. Tenants reach page 400 and rows are created while they read. Write the keyset query, define what the cursor carries and how it is encoded, and say which part of the index each predicate uses. Assume PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

  1. Name the two failures separately. OFFSET 20000 makes the server produce and discard 20,000 rows, so page cost grows with depth rather than with page size. Independently, any write that changes how many rows sort above the offset moves the window between two fetches, and the direction decides which anomaly you get: an insert lands at the head of updated_at DESC and pushes already-returned rows down past the boundary, so they are returned a second time; a delete above the offset, or a row whose updated_at is bumped above the cursor, pulls rows up and one is never returned at all. Nothing in the response reveals either.
  2. Write the seek: WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND status = 'active' AND (updated_at, resource_id) < ($2, $3) ORDER BY updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC LIMIT 50. The row-value comparison is one index range rather than a disjunction, and both columns are NOT NULL, which is what makes that comparison well defined.
  3. Map each predicate onto the index: tenant_id and status are equality on the leading columns, (updated_at, resource_id) is the range, and the ORDER BY matches the index order so no Sort node appears and the scan stops after 50 rows. The DESC in the definition only matters for mixed directions — a plain ascending btree on the same columns is read backwards for this query.
  4. Put both sort columns in the cursor and nothing the client can tamper with into another tenant: base64 of (updated_at, resource_id), validated server-side, with tenant_id taken from the principal.

Follow-up

  • The client asks for 'jump to page 400'. What do you offer instead, and what does the honest version cost?
  • Sort order becomes user-selectable across four columns. How many indexes is that, and which would you refuse to add?

Can you explain key OOPS concepts and how you implement them in your daily work?

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

What are the primary differences between Python and Golang in the context of high-performance microservices?

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
  2. Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
  3. Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
  4. State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.

Follow-up

  • What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
  • How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?

How do you ensure your code remains maintainable and scalable as project requirements evolve?

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
  2. Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
  3. Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
  4. State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.

Follow-up

  • What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
  • How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?

How do you approach debugging complex issues in an embedded or large-scale backend environment?

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Establish what changed and when, before forming any theory.
  2. Pick a bisection that eliminates candidates whichever way it turns out.
  3. Check the instrumentation before believing the symptom.
  4. Separate the trigger from the cause; the deploy is rarely the bug.

Follow-up

  • What would you look at first, and what would it rule out?
  • How would you tell a cause from a coincidence here?

Suggested practice checklist

Built from the rounds and topics Harvey Nash Group candidates report.

Day 1 — Map the Harvey Nash Group loop

  • Write out the reported sequence: Introductory Session, Technical Phone Screen, Practical Task, Architecture Discussion.
  • For each round, write one sentence on what it is judging, from the description above, and mark the one you are least ready for.

Deliverable: A one-page map of the 4 reported rounds, with the weakest marked.

Day 2 — Work Python

  • Spend the session on Python, which Harvey Nash Group candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Python and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Python.

Day 3 — Work Golang (Go)

  • Spend the session on Golang (Go), which Harvey Nash Group candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Golang (Go) and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Golang (Go).

Day 4 — Work Programming (code writing tasks)

  • Spend the session on Programming (code writing tasks), which Harvey Nash Group candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Programming (code writing tasks) and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Programming (code writing tasks).

Day 5 — Answer out loud: Technical & Domain Expertise

  • Answer aloud, timed: Can you explain key OOPS concepts and how you implement them in your daily work?
  • Answer aloud, timed: What are the primary differences between Python and Golang in the context of high-performance microservices?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Technical & Domain Expertise question(s), under time.

Day 6 — Answer out loud: Problem-Solving & Coding Tasks

  • Answer aloud, timed: How would you structure a program to handle high-concurrency data processing?
  • Answer aloud, timed: Given a specific task, how do you prioritize features versus technical debt?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Problem-Solving & Coding Tasks question(s), under time.

Day 7 — Dry run for Harvey Nash Group

  • Run one full mock under time, then write down the two questions you most want to ask your interviewers.

Deliverable: A completed timed mock and two questions to ask.

Behavioural preparation

Behavioural rounds judge the decision you made and what it cost.

Can you describe a time you had to optimize code for memory or processing efficiency?

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

How do you handle scenarios where you encounter a logic error during a live coding session?

Medium · Problem-Solving & Coding Tasks

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

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.

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?