Squarespace Software Engineer Interview Guide

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Squarespace, you are responsible for building, scaling, and maintaining the systems that power millions of websites, online stores, domain registrations, and marketing platforms globally. Your work directly enables creative entrepreneurs and businesses to establish an online presence, monetize their products, and streamline operations. Engineering at Squarespace blends consumer-grade design elegance with robust, high-scale infrastructure.

Allocate preparation against your weakest link rather than your favourite topic. A strong algorithm habit usually comes with weak out-loud explanation of tradeoffs, and years of shipping usually come with rusty from-scratch implementation under a clock.

Focus areas

• Make every write idempotent under client retries
• Scope every query and cache key by tenant
• Evolve APIs without breaking pinned SDK clients

Overview

You will contribute to product engineering teams like Domains Growth, Acuity Scheduling, or platform-focused teams such as Developer Tools and AI and Delivery Platform. Depending on your specialization, your work will range from crafting high-performance user interfaces in JavaScript and TypeScript to building resilient distributed systems and data pipelines using Java, Go, or Python. Regardless of your exact domain, software engineers at take full ownership of their service life cycle, from design and automated testing to deployment and production operations.

What makes this role distinct is Squarespace's commitment to clean architecture, high operational standards, and developer efficiency. You will solve complex scalability challenges—such as low-latency rendering, global domain resolution, high-throughput transaction processing, and automated dev tools—while maintaining an intuitive user experience.

The Squarespace interview process

Squarespace candidates report 7 rounds · ≈ 4-6 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Recruiter Phone Screen

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

Preliminary Technical Screen

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

Final Evaluation Loop

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

Data Structures & Algorithms

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.

System Design & Architecture

An unlabelled round is first an information problem, and the cheapest information is free. Whoever schedules it can usually tell you how long it runs, who will be in the room and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and in what environment, and whether anything is being sent beforehand. Ask in writing so the answer is on record, then prepare for the two or three formats those answers still leave open instead of betting on one. What separates a strong candidate is not guessing right; it is having an opening that works whichever one it turns out to be.

What to demonstrate

• Whether you can start work from an ambiguous brief, since tolerating a vague scope without stalling is the same thing the job asks for
• Whether the questions you asked beforehand were ones that change your preparation, such as duration, medium and who is joining, rather than ones whose answers you could not have acted on
• Whether you adapt when the round turns out to be something other than what you were told, instead of spending the first ten minutes visibly recalibrating

How to prepare

• Send one short scheduling message asking four things: how long, who is joining and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and where, and whether to prepare anything in advance. Treat a vague reply as real information, since it means the round is loosely structured and you will be shaping it yourself.
• Write one opening that works in any of the formats still open: restate in your own words what you have been asked to do, then ask which of two directions is more useful to them. Say it aloud until it stops sounding recited.
• Set up for the two most likely formats before the call starts, with a blank editor in the language you would choose and a shared document you can type into, so a format surprise costs you nothing in the first minutes

Code Review / Object-Oriented Design

When a round has no standard shape, it is often there because something is still open: an area no earlier conversation reached, a round where the signal came out mixed, or a decision someone is not ready to make alone. Work out which by going back over what each earlier round actually covered rather than how it felt, and arrive able to give evidence on that point without being asked twice. Weak answers replay the loop's earlier material at the same depth. Strong ones go a level deeper and stay consistent with what you already said.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your account of a project matches the one you gave earlier in the loop, since what you said before may be available to whoever runs this round
• Whether you can go a level deeper on something already covered, reaching the decision and its alternatives rather than repeating the summary
• Whether you state your own uncertainty accurately, including parts of a system you did not build and decisions you inherited, instead of claiming even ownership across all of it
• Whether you can answer a question you handled poorly earlier by naming what you missed, rather than delivering a polished second version as if the first had not happened

How to prepare

• Reconstruct the loop on one page: for each round, the questions you were asked and the answer you actually gave, not the better one you thought of afterwards. The gaps on that page are your best available guess at why this round exists.
• Take the two claims you made earlier that carry the most weight and assemble the backing for each: the measurement, the date, what broke, the decision you would make differently now.
• Write down the three facts about your work that must not drift between tellings, such as team size, timeline and your own role, and check your stories against that list rather than trusting recall under pressure

Where candidates lose points

Treating a timed-out write as a failed write

A timeout says the response did not arrive, not that the work did not happen; the server may well have committed and then lost the connection. Retrying a non-idempotent create after a timeout is the standard way to end up with two of something, and those duplicates land precisely when the system is already degraded and least able to absorb them. The discipline is to treat a timeout as unknown: either the write carries an idempotency key so the retry is safe by construction, or the client re-reads authoritative state before deciding what to do, and the interface says unknown rather than showing a failure that invites a second click.

One shared connection pool for every tenant and every query class

A single tenant with a large table and a missing index can occupy every connection with slow queries, and every other tenant then waits in connection acquisition -- a queue invisible in database metrics, because the database itself looks healthy while the application starves. Containment is bulkheads: separate pools or per-tenant concurrency caps for interactive requests, background jobs and exports, a statement timeout low enough that a pathological query dies before it accumulates, and an idle-in-transaction timeout so a stuck client cannot pin a connection and its locks indefinitely. One caveat worth knowing in advance: if a transaction-pooling proxy sits in front of the database, session-scoped behaviour changes, so session-level advisory locks and settings applied outside a transaction do not survive the way they do on a direct connection.

Issuing one query per row of a result set

Fetch related rows in a single batched query keyed by the ids you already hold, or join them into the original query. A per-row round trip multiplies network latency by the row count, and it looks perfectly fine against the ten rows in your development database.

Tests that assert on the implementation rather than the behaviour

Assert on what a caller can observe, not on the number of internal calls or the shape of a private field. A test that breaks on every refactor but still passes when the answer is wrong costs more than it protects.

Questions & practice

Implement an in-memory cache mechanism (such as an LRU or URL cache) with standard lookup, eviction, and time-based expiration semantics.

Medium · data structures 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. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.

Follow-up

• Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
• How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Implement an in-memory notification management system supporting add…

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Implement an in-memory notification management system supporting add, remove, get, exists, and size operations, where new notifications appear at the top and duplicates are refreshed to the head.

Approach

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

Follow-up

• Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
• How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Given a set of overlapping time slots or intervals, write a function to merge overlapping ranges and return the consolidated schedule.

Medium · data structures 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. 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?

Implement a min-heap or custom priority queue from scratch without using built-in language library helpers.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

1. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
2. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about 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?
• How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Explain and demonstrate key JavaScript mechanics, including asynchronous event loops, closures, prototype chaining, and this binding.

Medium · languages, concurrency and fundamentals

Approach

1. Identify the window where an invariant is briefly untrue.
2. Distinguish a value from a reference to it, and say which one you handed out.
3. Reach for the cheapest primitive that closes the race, not the broadest lock.

Follow-up

• How would you prove the race exists rather than suspect it?
• Where could this allocate more than you expect?

Build an interactive, framework-agnostic web component (such as an image carousel, slideshow, or interactive form) using vanilla JavaScript, HTML, and CSS.

Medium · languages, concurrency and fundamentals

Approach

1. Identify the window where an invariant is briefly untrue.
2. Name what is shared across threads and what owns each piece of state.
3. Say what the runtime actually does before reasoning about the code.

Follow-up

• How would you prove the race exists rather than suspect it?
• Where could this allocate more than you expect?

Seal an hour under late data with bounded memory

Hard · watermarks · late-data · quantile-sketch · conditional-write

Metering ingest reads 256 partitions at 10,000 to 40,000 events/second. Events carry occurred_at and ingested_at, and during a producer replay the gap between them is hours. Seal each UTC hour once no more than 50 parts per million of that hour's eventual quantity can still arrive, using memory that does not grow with the size of the replay. Define the watermark, the lateness parameter and how you measure it, the structure holding open hours, and the write that performs the seal. State what an idle partition does to your watermark.

Approach

1. Two clocks, two jobs. Bucket by occurred_at, because that is the hour the customer is billed for, and advance the watermark on ingested_at, because that is what the fold has consumed and what source_max_ingested_at records. Conflating them is what makes late data invisible.
2. The global watermark is the min over partitions of each partition's committed ingested_at, not the max: the fold is trustworthy only as far as the slowest partition. The consequence is that one idle partition pins the watermark forever and nothing seals, so an idle partition must promote its watermark to wall clock after a stated idle timeout, and that timeout becomes a correctness parameter, because a partition that is slow rather than idle gets sealed past.
3. Choose the lateness L from the measured distribution of ingested_at - occurred_at, weighted by quantity rather than by event count. The target is 50 ppm of the hour's quantity, and a replay is rare in events while carrying disproportionate mass, so an event-weighted quantile picks an L that is comfortably wrong at exactly the moment it matters.
4. Measure that quantile in bounded memory. A Greenwald-Khanna summary gives epsilon-approximate quantiles in O((1/epsilon) log(epsilon n)) space; a t-digest costs more per merge but has relative error that tightens at the tails, which is the half of the distribution you are reading at p99.99. Keep a separate summary per tenant class, because one tenant's batch importer is not the population.
5. Hold open hours in a min-heap keyed by hour_start. When the watermark advances, pop every hour with hour_end + L < W and seal it: O(log H_open) per advance and O(1) amortised per event to touch its bucket. Memory is open hours multiplied by distinct (tenant, workspace, sku) keys, so cap the number of simultaneously open hours and spill the oldest into usage_rollup_hourly as status='open' with a revision bump. While an hour is open the row is upsertable, so the store is your overflow.
6. The seal itself is a conditional write: update ... set status='sealed', sealed_at=now() where status='open' returning .... Two sealers race on every restart, and the loser must see zero rows and stop rather than write a second value. After the seal, an event for that hour is not an upsert but an adjustment, and source_max_ingested_at is what proves it arrived afterwards.

Worked solution (40 min)

1. Replay a day of events with a synthetic lateness distribution: 99.9% under two minutes, plus a 0.05% tail at four to six hours that carries 3% of total quantity.
2. Compute the p99.99 lateness two ways, event-weighted and quantity-weighted, and put the two numbers side by side.
3. Implement the min-heap of open hours with the watermark as the min over 256 partitions, then stall one partition for 20 minutes and observe what seals.
4. Set the idle-partition timeout to 60 seconds, repeat the stall, and measure how much quantity arrives after the seal.
5. Attempt the seal from two workers at once and confirm the conditional update lets exactly one through.

Expected result: The quantity-weighted p99.99 is hours larger than the event-weighted one. Choosing L from the event-weighted number lets roughly the tail's 3% of quantity land after the seal, 600 times the 50 ppm target. With the min watermark and no idle timeout, the stalled partition blocks all sealing; with a 60-second timeout, the stall is sealed past and its events arrive late.

Verify it yourself

• Post-seal quantity as a fraction of the hour's total is at or below 50 ppm at the chosen L, measured rather than assumed.
• The second sealer's update reports zero rows affected and writes nothing.
• Heap size equals the number of open hours and does not grow with the replay's event count.

Follow-up

• A replay starts during the sealing window for a period you are about to close. What do you do, and what is the customer-visible consequence of each option?
• Your measured quantity-weighted p99.99 lateness is six hours and the invoice must be issued at 02:00 UTC on the first. How do you reconcile those two numbers?
• How would you detect that L has drifted before it costs you an hour's quantity?

Model credential revocation so history survives the delete

Easy · soft delete · partial indexes · check constraints · audit history

tenant_api_key stores key_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, name, key_prefix, secret_hash, scopes text[], status (active, revoked, expired, compromised), auth_version, created_at, expires_at, last_used_at, revoked_at, revoked_reason. Rotation inserts a new row and revocation never deletes, because an incident review asks which credential served a request last quarter. Write the constraints that enforce: a label is unique only among a tenant's live keys, revoked_at and status can never disagree, and scopes is never empty. Then write the authentication lookup predicate, and name one column in this table that must stay out of it.

Approach

1. Reach for a partial unique index rather than a plain UNIQUE: create unique index on tenant_api_key (tenant_id, name) where revoked_at is null. Any number of revoked rows may share a label, the live namespace stays unique per tenant, and the revoked majority is not in the index at all, so it stays small on a table that only grows.
2. Tie the nullable timestamp to the enum so the two cannot drift: check ((revoked_at is not null) = (status in ('revoked','compromised'))) and check ((revoked_at is null) = (revoked_reason is null)). A revocation that records no reason is the one an incident review cannot use.
3. Write the emptiness check as check (cardinality(scopes) > 0), not array_length(scopes, 1) > 0. array_length returns NULL for an empty array, a CHECK constraint passes when its expression is NULL, so the array_length version accepts exactly the value it was written to reject.
4. Make the lookup a single index probe with every liveness condition inside it: where secret_hash = $1 and revoked_at is null and (expires_at is null or expires_at > now()) and auth_version = $2, backed by a unique index on secret_hash. Nothing is filtered in application code, so there is no path that forgets a clause.
5. Keep last_used_at out of that predicate. It is written asynchronously and is allowed to lag by a minute, so it is a usage signal; feeding it into an authorisation decision makes the decision depend on a write that may be late, batched away or lost.
6. Flag the modelling smell while you are here: expired is derivable from expires_at < now(), so storing it as a status obliges a job to keep it true and guarantees the column is wrong between the expiry instant and that job's next run. Derive it in the predicate; keep the stored status for states that are decisions rather than clock readings.

Worked solution (20 min)

1. Create the table with all three constraints on a scratch database and insert two revoked rows sharing (tenant_id, name); the partial index should accept both.
2. Insert a second live row with that same name and confirm the violation names the partial index.
3. Run update tenant_api_key set revoked_at = now() leaving status = 'active' and confirm the CHECK rejects it; then try insert ... scopes = '{}' against both the cardinality and the array_length forms and note that only one rejects it.
4. Run explain (analyze, buffers) on the lookup predicate for a live key and confirm an index scan on secret_hash with rows removed by filter equal to zero.

Expected result: A partial unique index on (tenant_id, name) where revoked_at is null; check ((revoked_at is not null) = (status in ('revoked','compromised'))); check ((revoked_at is null) = (revoked_reason is null)); check (cardinality(scopes) > 0); a single-probe lookup on secret_hash plus revoked_at, expires_at and auth_version; last_used_at excluded, with a note that 'expired' should be derived rather than stored.

Verify it yourself

• Two revoked keys with the same name insert cleanly; a second live one does not.
• The array_length form of the emptiness check accepts an empty array and the cardinality form rejects it.
• No statement anywhere in the design deletes or updates a revoked row.
• Revoking a key touches exactly one row and takes effect on the next lookup with no application-side filtering.

Follow-up

• Rotation issues a replacement while the old key stays live for a 30-day overlap. What does the uniqueness rule become, and what does the UI show to tell two same-named keys apart?
• A password reset bumps the principal's auth_version. No row in this table changed. How does the next request fail, and what query counts how many keys that bump just killed?
• A key turns up in a public repository. Which columns let you find it, and what do you write to the row?

Paginate a tenant's delivery export without skipping rows

Easy · keyset pagination · indexing · multi-tenancy

A customer exports webhook_delivery: delivery_id (bigint identity), subscription_id, tenant_id, event_id, status, attempt_count, next_attempt_at, created_at, delivered_at, updated_at. The endpoint runs select ... where tenant_id = $1 order by created_at desc limit 100 offset $2, and customers report rows missing from exports taken while new deliveries are being inserted. Write the replacement query and the index that supports it, paging a tenant's deliveries newest first at constant cost per page. State why updated_at cannot be the cursor column.

Approach

1. Name the defect precisely. OFFSET is a position in a result set that is recomputed on every request, so a row inserted ahead of the window shifts everything back by one and the next page starts after a row the client never received. Nothing errors and no identifier gap appears, so the loss is silent.
2. Replace the position with a value predicate over a stable, unique, indexed ordering: where tenant_id = $1 and (created_at, delivery_id) < ($2, $3) order by created_at desc, delivery_id desc limit 100. The row comparison is load-bearing: created_at alone is not unique, so ties straddling a page boundary are dropped or repeated, which is the same bug in a smaller window.
3. Index (tenant_id, created_at, delivery_id). PostgreSQL scans a btree in either direction, so an all-DESC ORDER BY is served by an ASC index read backwards and no DESC modifiers are needed; they only matter when the ORDER BY mixes directions. Confirm the plan has no Sort node above the index scan, or the LIMIT stops being an early exit.
4. Price both forms: keyset is one index descent plus 100 adjacent leaf entries per page, constant regardless of depth, while OFFSET still produces and discards every skipped row, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table goes from milliseconds to seconds.
5. Rule out updated_at as the cursor from the precondition, not from taste: a cursor column must never change value for a row already paged past. updated_at moves on every delivery attempt, so a row the client already emitted re-enters a later page and is exported twice. created_at and delivery_id are immutable, which is the whole qualification.

Follow-up

• The client wants a snapshot as of one instant rather than a live tail. Compare a repeatable-read transaction held open, an added created_at <= $snapshot bound, and a materialised export table.
• A retention job deletes deliveries older than 90 days. What does a client mid-walk see, and does keyset pagination help at all?
• The customer wants to resume an export from yesterday's last cursor. What must be true of the cursor for that to be safe?

Design the backend architecture for an online booking and scheduling system (similar to Acuity Scheduling), accounting for concurrent booking requests and time zone conversions.

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

1. State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
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.

Follow-up

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

Review a poorly written, bug-ridden codebase (in Java or JavaScript) and identify logical flaws, performance bottlenecks, race conditions, and clean code anti-patterns.

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Build a resumable usage export the customer can reconcile against

Medium · pagination · cursors · late data

Customers reconcile invoices against usage_event (event_id uuid, tenant_id, workspace_id, environment, sku, quantity numeric(20,6), idempotency_key, occurred_at, ingested_at, source_service, request_id), partitioned daily on ingested_at. The current export is ?page=N&per_page=1000 ordered by occurred_at, and a customer syncing hourly reports rows that never appear in their export but do appear on their invoice. Design the replacement: the ordering, the cursor's contents, the index it requires, and the rule deciding where a page stops. State what the client does on a timeout and on a cursor older than retention.

Approach

1. Separate the two defects in the current shape. Offset makes the database produce and discard N * per_page rows, so page cost grows linearly and a deep page degrades from milliseconds to seconds. Concurrent inserts also shift the window between requests, so a walker skips rows with no error raised anywhere, which for a customer sync is silent data loss.
2. Order by ingestion, not by occurrence. During a replay events arrive hours out of occurred_at order, so a consumer holding an occurred_at high-water mark can never see a late event that falls below it; (ingested_at, event_id) is the only ordering under which 'everything after my cursor' is a complete statement.
3. Page with a row comparison: where tenant_id = $1 and (ingested_at, event_id) > ($2, $3) order by ingested_at, event_id limit $4, backed by an index on (tenant_id, ingested_at, event_id). That seeks directly to the resume point, so every page costs the same regardless of depth.
4. Trail the head of the table. With ingested_at defaulting to now(), which is transaction start time, a long insert transaction receives an earlier timestamp and becomes visible after a reader has already passed it. Cap each page at ingested_at <= now() - delta, with delta larger than the longest write transaction as bounded by statement_timeout and idle_in_transaction_session_timeout, or the export skips exactly the rows written under load.
5. Make the cursor opaque and self-describing: base64 of the timestamp, the event id and a fingerprint of the filters, rejected when the filters differ from the current request. Return 410 with a cursor_expired code once the cursor's partition has been dropped, so the client restarts from a known time instead of resuming into a hole.
6. Keep a page a pure GET with no server-side consumption, so a timeout is resolved by retrying the identical cursor.

Worked solution (30 min)

1. Construct the failing case on paper: an event with occurred_at at 09:00 ingested at 14:00, and a consumer that read up to 10:00 at 11:00.
2. Write the keyset query with the row comparison and the exact index it needs, then say which column of the index each predicate uses.
3. Add the trailing-head predicate and pick delta from a named timeout setting rather than a round number.
4. Define the cursor's encoded contents and the two error cases: filter mismatch and expired partition, with their status codes.
5. Write the client's algorithm in four lines: request, persist cursor after processing the page, retry the same cursor on timeout, restart from a time on 410.

Expected result: Keyset pagination over (ingested_at, event_id) with an index on (tenant_id, ingested_at, event_id), a trailing head predicate sized above the longest write transaction, an opaque filter-bound cursor, and 410 for a cursor past retention.

Verify it yourself

• A late event with an old occurred_at is still delivered by the export.
• Page cost is independent of how many pages have already been read.
• The cursor persists across a client restart and survives retrying the same page.
• The tie-break column is unique, so no row can be skipped or repeated at a page boundary.

Follow-up

• The customer asks for a total count alongside the first page. What do you offer instead, and why is an exact count both expensive here and wrong by the time it is read?
• How would you let a customer re-read a window they have already consumed without giving up the forward-only cursor?

Metering partition crash-loops and the sealing watermark freezes

Medium · poison message · at-least-once · dead-letter queue

One metering-ingest partition has stopped advancing. Lag grows linearly, the consumer restarts about every 40 seconds, and the same offset appears in every startup log while other partitions stay healthy. Events are committed in batches of a few thousand and the acknowledgement follows the commit. Sealing is six hours away and source_max_ingested_at for that partition's tenants is frozen. Give an ordered checklist, a containment action available within minutes, and the durable fix, saying what each does to exactly-once accounting.

Approach

1. Distinguish a poison record from a capacity problem in one measurement: compare the offset and the exception across restarts. An identical pair every time is deterministic failure on one record, whereas a throughput problem still advances the offset between crashes.
2. Read the record from a separate consumer group so the bytes can be inspected without perturbing the stuck consumer, then classify the defect: schema violation, a quantity failing the non-negative check, a null workspace, an unmappable SKU enum, or a payload past a size limit. That classification decides whether this is a producer bug or a missing consumer guard.
3. Account for batch granularity before acting. With commits of a few thousand, one bad record fails thousands of good ones, so the blast radius is the batch. Halve the batch around the offset to isolate the record, or move to per-record error isolation so the radius becomes the record.
4. Contain by diverting that record to a dead-letter store with its raw bytes and offset, then resume. This is safe here precisely because the acknowledgement follows the commit: the good records from the failed batch are re-consumed and absorbed by the uniqueness check on (tenant_id, idempotency_key) rather than counted twice.
5. Make the fix durable with per-record error isolation, a bounded poison counter, and an alert on dead-letter rate rather than on lag alone, since lag only reveals this after the sealing margin has already been eaten.
6. Check the horizon before replaying anything. The unique index lives on a daily-partitioned table and therefore includes the partition key, so it deduplicates within a day only; a replay landing on a later ingest day needs the separate dedup store or it double-counts into a tenant's bill.

Follow-up

• Move the acknowledgement before the commit and describe exactly what is lost and what is duplicated in each of the two crash windows.
• Sealing is in six hours and the partition will not drain in time. What do you seal on, and what does the invoice have to record so the difference is explainable later?
• A producer replays two weeks of events next month. Which part of your fix stops holding, and what is the dedup horizon you would actually configure?

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate senior enough that the loop turns on design and judgement rather than on whether the coding round gets finished. Five days build one system properly and then stress it; coding gets a single maintenance day, on the assumption that the risk at this level is an unexamined tradeoff rather than a missed algorithm.

Day 1 — Numbers before diagrams

• Build your own reference card of the figures you will re-derive all week: bytes for a realistic record, requests per second implied by a given daily active count, and the storage that a year at a given write rate produces. Derive each one rather than copying it, because the derivation is what survives a follow-up.
• Turn one product statement into capacity requirements. From ten million daily users at four writes and forty reads each, state the peak-to-average factor you are assuming and why, then produce peak write QPS, peak read QPS and a year of storage.
• Write the two numbers whose order of magnitude changes the design, the read-to-write ratio and the working-set size against memory per node, and state the threshold at which each one flips your answer.

Deliverable: A one-page numbers card and one worked capacity estimate with every assumption written down.

Day 2 — One system, from requirements to schema

• Spend the first ten minutes producing only functional requirements, non-functional targets with numbers attached, a p99 latency, a durability expectation, a consistency requirement, and an explicit out-of-scope list.
• Define the interface before the boxes: the three or four endpoints, their parameters, what each returns, and which of them are idempotent.
• Write the data model, then write the single access pattern that justifies it, and state what the schema would have to become if the dominant access pattern were the other one.

Deliverable: One design carried to endpoint-and-schema depth, with non-functional targets expressed as numbers and a written out-of-scope list.

Day 3 — The consistency you are actually buying

• Write out what a client sees under asynchronous replication when its write commits on the leader and its next read is served by a lagging follower, then write the two fixes, pinning that session's reads to the leader for a bounded window or carrying a version token the replica must reach, and the cost of each.
• Work the quorum arithmetic on paper for N of three with W and R of two, and separate what R + W > N does guarantee, that any read set intersects any write set, from what it does not: on its own it is not linearizability, and a sloppy quorum that accepts writes on nodes outside the preference list breaks even the intersection.
• Take two storage choices with different defaults, a single-leader relational store committing synchronously and a quorum-replicated store that converges eventually, and write the specific product behaviour that would be wrong under each, rather than a general statement about which is stronger.

Deliverable: A page separating what quorum overlap guarantees from what it does not, with one concrete product misbehaviour attached to each gap.

Day 4 — Failure is the design

• For one write path, work through the case where the client times out after the server has already committed, then design the idempotency key: who generates it, how long it is retained, and what the duplicate request returns.
• Express the retry policy as parameters rather than as a word: maximum attempts, base delay, backoff factor, jitter, and which error classes are retried at all. Then state why retrying a non-idempotent write without a key is a correctness bug and not merely waste.
• Compute the fan-out effect on tail latency. If a request waits on ten backends and each independently exceeds its p99 one percent of the time, the chance at least one is slow is 1 - 0.99^10, about ten percent. Then write why independence is the optimistic assumption and what correlates them in practice.
• Name the backpressure mechanism for one queue or one dependency in the design, a bounded queue with shedding or a concurrency limit, and write what the caller is told when it engages.

Deliverable: One write path with an idempotency design, a parameterised retry policy, and a written tail-latency calculation with its assumption named.

Day 5 — Scaling the hot path

• Choose cache-aside or write-through for one read path and write the staleness window each produces, then name the invalidation event and what the system does when that event is lost.
• Design against the stampede: either coalesce requests so only one recomputes a missing key, or refresh early with jittered expiry, and write why identical TTLs on keys populated in the same moment produce a synchronised expiry and a thundering herd.
• Shard one table by a key you choose, then answer the two questions that break the choice: which queries now require a scatter-gather, and what happens to the distribution when one tenant is a hundred times larger than the median.
• Write the cost of adding a node under plain modulo placement, where nearly every key moves, against consistent hashing, where roughly one key in n+1 moves, and state what virtual nodes are for.

Deliverable: A caching and sharding decision for one path, each with its failure mode and its rebalancing cost written beside it.

Day 6 — Keep the coding hand in, at the bar that applies to you

• Solve one medium problem in thirty minutes, then spend twenty more making it production-shaped: named invariants, validation at the boundary, and errors that distinguish a caller mistake from an internal fault.
• Write the tests you would require of a colleague's version of that function: one for empty input, one for the boundary, and one for the case the implementation is most likely to get wrong.
• Read a piece of your own code from six months ago and write the change you would ask for, phrased as you would actually phrase it in review.

Deliverable: One problem hardened to review standard, with its test list and one written review comment.

Day 7 — Defend it while being interrupted

• Run a forty-five-minute design mock with an interviewer briefed to change a requirement halfway, a tenfold traffic increase or a new strict consistency requirement, and to push on one number you estimated.
• Rehearse the two sentences a senior loop is listening for: naming the tradeoff you are choosing against and why, and saying what you would measure to learn that the choice was wrong.
• Prepare the design you regret: a real decision, the constraint that produced it, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards.

Deliverable: Mock notes recording how the design changed under the new requirement, plus a written account of one regretted decision.

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.

Walk me through a complex technical outage or bug you caused or investigated in production. How did you mitigate it and prevent future occurrences?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Reverse a webhook ordering decision after measuring its cost

Medium · reversing decisions · head-of-line blocking · at-least-once · api contracts

You argued for strict per-subscription ordering in webhook-delivery, which means one in-flight attempt per subscription. It shipped. Three months later a single unresponsive endpoint holds one subscription's queue at a six-hour backlog, and two customers report events arriving out of order anyway once their own retries are counted. Describe a decision you reversed: what you originally optimised for, the measurement that changed your mind, what the reversal cost in engineering time and customer change, and how you told the people who had already built on the original guarantee.

Approach

1. State the original decision as a trade you made knowingly. Ordering across a network requires a single in-flight attempt per subscription, and its price is head-of-line blocking whenever one endpoint is slow. 'We priced it wrong' is a much stronger opening than 'we did not realise', and it is usually the true one.
2. Bring the measurement that flipped it, not the anecdote: backlog age at the ninety-ninth percentile per subscription, the share of subscriptions where one slow endpoint gated an otherwise healthy queue, and the delivery throughput lost to serialisation. A reversal justified by complaints is indistinguishable from a reversal justified by fatigue.
3. Name what you learned about the guarantee itself, which is the engineering content of this story. At-least-once delivery means a retried event already arrives after newer ones and the consumer already must be idempotent, so a guarantee the customer has to defend against anyway was never worth what it cost to provide.
4. Describe the migration, because reversing a published contract is the hard half and the part candidates skip. Parallel attempts behind a per-subscription flag, a monotonically increasing sequence number added to the envelope so order-sensitive consumers can sort or discard, documentation that states at-least-once and unordered in those words, and a deprecation measured in quarters because the client is a pinned SDK inside a build pipeline you cannot see or redeploy.
5. Give the cost in the two currencies that matter: engineer-weeks, and how many customers had to change code. Then say who you told before it shipped rather than in a changelog afterwards, and which large customer you left on the old behaviour and for how long.
6. Close with the signal you now weight differently, stated as something you would do earlier next time: measuring the blocking cost on the slowest decile of endpoints before committing to the guarantee, rather than after a customer noticed.

Follow-up

• A customer insists they need ordering. What do you offer them that is not global serialisation?
• How did you choose the deprecation window given that you cannot see or redeploy the clients?
• What would have to be true for you to reverse back?

Resolve a review disagreement over a quota check

Easy · code review · isolation levels · write skew · disagreement

A colleague's pull request enforces a per-tenant quota by selecting the current count and then inserting when it is under the limit. You flag it as a race. They reply that the transaction already runs at repeatable read, so the snapshot makes it safe, and the tests pass. Walk through taking that disagreement to a resolution: what you write in the review, what you demonstrate rather than assert, which fix you propose and why, and what you do if they still disagree after all of it.

Approach

1. Answer the claim precisely instead of restating your objection, because they have made a specific technical argument. In PostgreSQL, repeatable read is snapshot isolation; this is write skew, which snapshot isolation permits by design. Both transactions read a count that is stable within their own snapshot, insert disjoint rows that the other cannot see, and both commit, so the limit is exceeded by exactly the concurrency.
2. Demonstrate rather than cite. Two psql sessions, both BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ, both select the count, both insert, both commit: it succeeds. Repeat at SERIALIZABLE and the second commit fails with serialization_failure, SQLSTATE 40001. That takes two minutes, ends the argument without anyone conceding a position, and leaves an artefact for the next reviewer.
3. Offer the options with their costs rather than a verdict. Serialisable plus a retry loop on 40001 is correct but obliges every caller to retry and degrades under contention. An increment-and-compare on a counter row — update tenant_quota set used = used + 1 where tenant_id = $1 and used < limit returning used — is safe even at read committed, because a blocked updater re-evaluates the WHERE clause against the row version it finally locks, and zero rows returned means full. A unique or exclusion constraint that makes the surplus write fail is the third.
4. Name the plausible non-fix explicitly, since it is what usually gets merged instead: folding the count into the insert as insert ... select ... where (select count(*) ...) < limit is still racy under read committed, because the subquery cannot see the other transaction's uncommitted rows. It looks atomic and is not.
5. Say what you do if they still disagree: escalate the decision rather than the disagreement. Attach the reproduction, hand it to the service owner or a third reviewer, and state that you will not block the merge if the owner accepts the risk knowingly — and that you want that acceptance written down.
6. Close with the general lesson worth leaving in the review thread: a passing suite is weak evidence for a concurrency claim because it runs one request at a time. Ask for a test that runs two.

Follow-up

• Write the counter-row version. Does your answer change if the quota counts child rows rather than a column?
• Under serialisable, who performs the retry, and what does the API client see if the retry also fails?
• This is the third disagreement with the same reviewer this month. What changes in how you review?