I went with a trie, which felt like the obvious move.
Start by clarifying the requirements: the list is static or dynamic, and whether we need to return all matching words or just count them. Then propose a trie (prefix tree) as the primary data structure, explaining how each node represents a character and stores a list of words that pass through it. Walk through insertion and query operations, and analyze time complexity in terms of prefix length and number of matches.
Pro tip: Mention that for a static list, you can preprocess by sorting the words and using binary search to find the range of words with the given prefix, which can be more space-efficient than a trie. Also, discuss how to handle large result sets with pagination or streaming, which is relevant for production systems.
Ask whether the word list is static or dynamic, the expected size, and if the function should return all words or just a count. Also consider case sensitivity and memory constraints.
Describe building a trie where each node represents a character and stores a list of words that have the prefix up to that node. Explain insertion and query operations.
Use a small example (e.g., words: ['apple', 'app', 'apricot']) to illustrate how the trie is built and how a query for 'ap' returns the correct words.
For a query with prefix length L and K matching words, the time is O(L + total characters in matches) if returning all words, or O(L + K) if just returning references. Space is O(total characters in all words).
Compare with sorting + binary search (O(L log N + K) time, O(N) space) and mention that tries are better for dynamic insertions and frequent prefix queries.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.