← Netflix Interview Insights

Netflix·Software Engineer·Onsite - System Design / Architecture·Senior

SeniorPrefer not to say
May 2026

Summary

Netflix system design round focused on a deduplication problem for the homepage feed. The coding portion was manageable but the production scaling discussion is where things got real fast.

Questions Asked (2)

Q1

Implement a deduplication function for a 2D list representing a homepage feed (rows of horizontally scrolling content). The function should remove duplicate show names using both a global visited set across the whole page and a per-row local visited set, scanning top-to-bottom and left-to-right.

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem Design
Author's notes

The two-level dedup structure clicked for me pretty quickly.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Clarify the deduplication rules: a show is removed if it has been seen earlier in the same row (local) or anywhere above in the entire feed (global). Then implement a single pass over the 2D list, maintaining a global set and a per-row set, and only keep a show if it's not in either set, adding it to both sets when kept.

Pro tip: Discuss the trade-off between using a global set for O(1) lookups versus sorting or other approaches, and mention that the order of scanning (top-to-bottom, left-to-right) ensures deterministic output. Also, consider edge cases like empty rows or null values.

1. Clarify requirements and constraints

Ask if the deduplication should be case-sensitive, if show names are unique identifiers, and if the output should preserve the original order. Confirm that local duplicates are removed even if not seen globally.

2. Design the algorithm

Use two sets: a global set for all kept shows and a local set for the current row. Iterate through each row, and for each show, check if it's in either set; if not, keep it and add to both sets.

3. Analyze complexity

Time complexity is O(N) where N is total number of shows, as each show is processed once. Space complexity is O(N) for the sets, but can be optimized by clearing the local set per row.

4. Handle edge cases

Consider empty input, rows with no shows, duplicate shows within a row, and shows that appear in multiple rows. Ensure the function returns a new 2D list without modifying the original.

5. Test with examples

Walk through a sample input to verify correctness, such as [[A, B, A], [B, C, D], [A, E]] resulting in [[A, B], [C, D], [E]].

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of two sets: global and local, to track seen show names.
  • Single pass algorithm with O(N) time and O(N) space complexity.
  • Preservation of original order and deterministic output.
  • Edge cases: empty rows, null values, case sensitivity.
  • Potential optimization: clear local set after each row to save memory.
  • Discussion on whether to modify in-place or return a new list.

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

Q2

How would you scale this deduplication system for production at Netflix scale? Consider things like Redis Bloom Filters, per-user vs global dedup, TTL on the visited set, and integration with the ranking layer.

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This is where I got a bit turned around.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the scale and requirements (e.g., QPS, latency, memory constraints) and then propose a layered architecture that separates per-user and global deduplication. Discuss the trade-offs of using Redis Bloom Filters for probabilistic dedup, TTL strategies for freshness, and how dedup integrates with the ranking layer to avoid filtering out relevant items.

Pro tip: Emphasize that deduplication should be configurable and observable—different surfaces (e.g., recommendations vs. search) may need different dedup windows and granularity, and you should monitor false positive rates and memory usage.

1. Clarify Requirements and Scale

Ask about expected QPS, number of users, item cardinality, latency SLA, and memory budget. Understand what 'deduplication' means here: avoiding showing the same item twice in a session, across sessions, or globally?

2. Design Per-User vs Global Dedup

Propose separate mechanisms: per-user dedup (e.g., Redis sets or Bloom filters keyed by user) for personalized freshness, and global dedup (e.g., a shared Bloom filter) for trending or popular items. Discuss trade-offs in memory and accuracy.

3. Choose Data Structures and TTL Strategy

Evaluate Redis Bloom Filters for memory efficiency vs. exact sets for accuracy. Define TTLs based on content lifecycle (e.g., 24 hours for recommendations, longer for evergreen content) and consider sliding windows or time-bucketed keys.

4. Integrate with Ranking Layer

Explain how dedup fits into the ranking pipeline: either as a pre-filter (remove duplicates before ranking) or post-filter (after ranking, to preserve relevance). Discuss how to handle fallbacks when dedup removes too many items.

5. Address Scalability and Reliability

Cover sharding, replication, and failover for Redis; consider using a distributed cache like Memcached or a custom service. Discuss monitoring, false positive rates, and how to handle cache misses without impacting latency.

Key Points to Mention

  • Redis Bloom Filters: memory-efficient probabilistic dedup, but false positives require fallback logic.
  • Per-user vs global dedup: per-user for personalization, global for broad trends; different TTLs and storage.
  • TTL strategies: time-based expiration to keep the visited set fresh; consider sliding windows or time-bucketed keys.
  • Integration with ranking: dedup before ranking to reduce compute, or after ranking to preserve relevance; handle empty results.
  • Scalability: shard Redis by user ID, use read replicas, and consider a multi-tier cache (local + Redis).
  • Observability: monitor false positive rates, memory usage, and dedup hit rates to tune parameters.

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