← Meta Interview Insights

Meta·Data Scientist·Take-home Assignment·Senior

SeniorPrefer not to say
Sep 2025Remote

Summary

Meta Data Scientist take-home style question, heavy SQL with some tricky edge cases around versioning and idempotency. The kind of problem that looks manageable on paper until you're actually writing CTEs for 45 minutes and second-guessing every join.

Questions Asked (3)

Q1

Write SQL using CTEs to produce a per-profile snapshot table showing engagement metrics (views, likes, like rate) and profile quality signals (photo count, bio length) for profiles that have a final approved review on their latest version as of a given snapshot timestamp, excluding deleted profiles.

Data ModelingProduct Analytics & MetricsSystem Design
Author's notes

This one took me longer than I expected to set up cleanly.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Break the problem into logical CTEs: first filter active profiles and their latest approved review version, then join to engagement and quality metrics, and finally compute derived metrics like like rate. Use window functions to identify the latest version per profile and ensure the snapshot timestamp is respected.

Pro tip: Explicitly state your assumptions about the data model (e.g., how reviews, versions, and profiles relate) and clarify ambiguous terms like 'latest version' and 'final approved review' before writing SQL. This shows you think like a data scientist who validates requirements.

1. Clarify requirements and data model

Ask clarifying questions about table schemas, relationships, and definitions (e.g., what constitutes a 'final approved review', how to identify deleted profiles, and whether metrics are cumulative or per snapshot).

2. Filter active profiles and latest approved reviews

Use a CTE to select non-deleted profiles and join to reviews, filtering for approved status and using a window function to get the latest version per profile as of the snapshot timestamp.

3. Aggregate engagement and quality metrics

In separate CTEs, compute per-profile metrics such as total views, total likes, photo count, and bio length, ensuring they are calculated as of the snapshot timestamp.

4. Join and compute derived metrics

Join the filtered profiles with the metrics CTEs and calculate like rate (likes/views) while handling division by zero.

5. Final selection and formatting

Select the required columns, apply any final filters (e.g., only profiles with at least one view), and order the results for readability.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of CTEs for modularity and readability
  • Window functions (e.g., ROW_NUMBER) to identify latest version per profile
  • Filtering conditions: approved review status, non-deleted profiles, snapshot timestamp
  • Handling of NULLs and division by zero in like rate calculation
  • Assumptions about data granularity (e.g., daily vs. cumulative metrics)
  • Performance considerations: indexing on profile_id, review_version, snapshot_date

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.

Q2

Aggregate the per-profile snapshot to country-level metrics: number of approved profiles, percent with at least one photo, percent with a bio of 10 or more characters, total 7-day views and likes, and overall 7-day like rate.

Product Analytics & MetricsData Modeling
Author's notes

Straightforward GROUP BY once the snapshot CTE is solid.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the grain of the data and the definition of each metric, then outline a SQL query that aggregates from the profile-level snapshot to country-level. Use conditional aggregation to compute counts and sums, and derive percentages and rates from those aggregates. Finally, validate the results and consider edge cases like missing data or profiles with no activity.

Pro tip: Always confirm whether the metrics should be computed over all profiles or only approved profiles, and whether the 7-day window is fixed or rolling. This shows attention to detail and prevents misinterpretation.

1. Clarify definitions and grain

Confirm the definition of 'approved profiles', 'photo', 'bio', '7-day views/likes', and the time window. Ensure you understand the profile-level snapshot table structure.

2. Plan the aggregation logic

Decide how to compute each metric: counts for approved profiles, conditional counts for photo/bio percentages, sums for views/likes, and rate as sum(likes)/sum(views).

3. Write the SQL query

Use GROUP BY country and aggregate functions like COUNT, SUM, and CASE WHEN to calculate the required metrics in a single query.

4. Validate and handle edge cases

Check for NULLs, division by zero, and profiles with no views. Consider whether to filter out countries with small sample sizes.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use conditional aggregation (CASE WHEN) to compute percentages without subqueries.
  • Ensure the like rate is calculated as total likes divided by total views, not average of per-profile rates.
  • Handle potential NULL values in photo or bio fields appropriately.
  • Consider whether the 7-day window is relative to the snapshot date or a fixed period.
  • Validate that the sum of country-level approved profiles equals the total approved profiles.
  • Be prepared to discuss how to handle profiles with zero views when computing like rate.

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.

Q3

Write validation queries to: flag profiles where the final review references a non-latest version, detect profiles with more than one final review, surface events that arrived after the snapshot cutoff, and ensure reruns produce the same result by time-bounding all event aggregations to the snapshot.

Data ModelingTechnical Trade-offsRoot Cause Analysis
Author's notes

The idempotency one is where I think a lot of people slip up.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the data model and snapshot semantics, then structure your answer around four validation queries that each address a specific integrity check. For each query, explain the logic, the join conditions, and how time-bounding ensures deterministic reruns. Emphasize that these checks are essential for data quality and reproducibility in a production pipeline.

Pro tip: Mention that you would run these validation queries as part of a data quality gate before downstream consumption, and that you'd log any violations for root cause analysis. This shows you think about operationalizing data quality, not just writing ad-hoc queries.

1. Clarify the data model and snapshot semantics

Ask about the schema: profiles, reviews, events, and how snapshot cutoff is defined. Confirm that 'latest version' means the most recent review version per profile as of the snapshot.

2. Write query to flag profiles where final review references non-latest version

Use a window function to rank reviews by version per profile, then compare the final review's version to the max version. Filter where they differ.

3. Detect profiles with more than one final review

Group by profile and count final reviews (e.g., where is_final = true). Flag profiles with count > 1.

4. Surface events that arrived after the snapshot cutoff

Filter events where event_timestamp > snapshot_cutoff. This identifies late-arriving data that could affect aggregations.

5. Ensure reruns produce the same result by time-bounding aggregations

Add a WHERE clause to all event aggregations that restricts events to those with event_timestamp <= snapshot_cutoff. This guarantees deterministic results across reruns.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of window functions (e.g., ROW_NUMBER, RANK) to identify latest versions
  • Importance of snapshot cutoff for reproducibility and avoiding data drift
  • Handling of late-arriving events and their impact on aggregations
  • Data quality checks as part of a pipeline gate
  • Clear definition of 'final review' and 'latest version' in the context of the schema
  • Potential need for indexing or partitioning on event_timestamp for performance

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.