← Verkada Interview Insights

Verkada·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Intermediate

IntermediatePrefer not to say
Jul 2026

Summary

Verkada SWE interview focused entirely on cache design, both LRU and LFU variants. Two problems back to back with a pretty clear expectation that you'd nail the O(1) complexity story and be able to talk through your data structure choices out loud.

Questions Asked (2)

Q1

Implement an LRU cache with fixed capacity supporting get and put in O(1) average time, evicting the least recently used entry when full.

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

I knew this one pretty well going in.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the requirements: fixed capacity, O(1) average time for get and put, and LRU eviction. Then propose a hash map combined with a doubly linked list, explaining how each operation maintains O(1) time. Walk through the implementation details, including edge cases and potential optimizations.

Pro tip: Mention that you would use a doubly linked list to track usage order and a hash map for O(1) access, and discuss how to handle thread safety if the cache might be accessed concurrently. This shows you think about real-world deployment beyond the basic algorithm.

1. Clarify requirements and constraints

Confirm the expected operations (get, put), capacity behavior, and any assumptions about key/value types or concurrency. Ask if the cache needs to be thread-safe.

2. Choose data structures

Propose a hash map for O(1) key lookup and a doubly linked list to maintain recency order. Explain that the hash map stores references to list nodes.

3. Define operations

Describe how get moves the accessed node to the front (most recently used) and returns the value. For put, insert or update the node, move it to the front, and if capacity is exceeded, remove the tail node (least recently used) and delete its key from the map.

4. Handle edge cases

Discuss updating an existing key, evicting when capacity is 1, and handling null values. Mention that the list and map must stay in sync.

5. Analyze complexity and trade-offs

State that both operations are O(1) average time due to hash map and constant-time list manipulations. Mention space complexity O(capacity). Optionally, discuss alternatives like using an ordered dictionary or a combination of data structures.

Key Points to Mention

  • Hash map provides O(1) average time for key lookup and insertion.
  • Doubly linked list allows O(1) removal and insertion at both ends, and moving a node to the front.
  • Eviction policy: remove the least recently used item, which is the tail of the list.
  • Updating an existing key should also mark it as most recently used.
  • Thread safety considerations: use locks or concurrent data structures if needed.
  • Space complexity is O(capacity) for storing the cache entries.

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

Q2

Implement an LFU cache with the same API, evicting the lowest-frequency entry on capacity overflow, with LRU as a tiebreaker among entries sharing the minimum frequency, all in O(1) average time.

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This is where I started sweating.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the API and constraints, then design a data structure combining a frequency map and a doubly linked list per frequency to achieve O(1) operations. Explain how to maintain the minimum frequency pointer and handle tie-breaking with LRU order within each frequency list.

Pro tip: Mention that you can use a single doubly linked list for each frequency, and that the min_freq pointer only increases by 1 on eviction, which is key to O(1) amortized time. Also, discuss how to handle edge cases like updating frequency when a key is accessed.

1. Clarify requirements and API

Confirm the expected operations (get, put), capacity behavior, and tie-breaking rules. Ask about thread safety if relevant.

2. Design core data structures

Propose using a hash map for key-to-node mapping, a hash map for frequency-to-doubly-linked-list, and a min_freq variable. Explain how each node stores key, value, and frequency.

3. Detail operations for O(1)

Walk through get and put: on access, move node to next frequency list; on insert, add to freq=1 list; on eviction, remove LRU from min_freq list and update min_freq if needed.

4. Analyze complexity and edge cases

Argue O(1) average time for all operations, and discuss edge cases like capacity 0, updating existing key, and tie-breaking correctness.

5. Discuss trade-offs and alternatives

Compare with LRU and LFU variants, mention memory overhead, and consider if a heap-based approach could be acceptable but not O(1).

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of doubly linked lists to maintain LRU order within each frequency.
  • Hash map from frequency to list for O(1) access to frequency buckets.
  • Min_freq pointer that only increases by 1 on eviction, ensuring O(1) amortized updates.
  • Handling of get and put operations with frequency updates and list movements.
  • Edge cases: capacity 0, updating existing key, and eviction when multiple keys have same min frequency.
  • Trade-offs: memory overhead vs. O(1) guarantee, and comparison with other caching strategies.

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