← Salesforce Interview Insights

Salesforce·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Intermediate

Intermediate
Apr 2026

Summary

Salesforce software engineer interview with two algorithm problems back to back. Nothing too exotic but the second question had a subtle definition that tripped me up mid-solution.

Questions Asked (2)

Q1

Given a list of words, what is the minimum number of character substitutions needed so that no word contains two identical adjacent characters?

Algorithms & Data Structures
Author's notes

Felt pretty manageable.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Treat each word independently and count the minimum substitutions needed to eliminate all adjacent identical characters. For each word, scan left to right and whenever two adjacent characters are the same, substitute the second one with a different character (e.g., a placeholder) and increment the count. Sum the counts across all words.

Pro tip: Clarify that substitutions can be any character, including ones not in the original alphabet, so a single substitution always suffices to break a pair. This shows you understand the problem's constraints and avoids overcomplicating the solution.

1. Clarify the problem

Confirm that substitutions can be any character (not limited to the original alphabet) and that each word is independent. Ask if the input is a list of strings and if the output is a single integer.

2. Design per-word algorithm

For each word, iterate through its characters from left to right. When you find two identical adjacent characters, replace the second one with a different character (e.g., a special symbol) and increment a counter.

3. Handle edge cases

Consider words with length 0 or 1 (no substitutions needed), and words with runs of identical characters (e.g., 'aaa') where each additional character in the run requires a substitution.

4. Sum and return

Accumulate the substitution counts for all words and return the total. Explain that the greedy left-to-right approach yields the minimum because each substitution can fix at most one adjacent pair.

5. Analyze complexity

State that the time complexity is O(N) where N is the total number of characters across all words, and space complexity is O(1) extra space (if modifying in place) or O(N) if creating a new string.

Key Points to Mention

  • Greedy left-to-right scanning is optimal because each substitution can resolve at most one adjacent pair.
  • Substituting the second character in a pair avoids creating new adjacent duplicates with the next character.
  • Runs of identical characters (e.g., 'aaa') require (length of run - 1) substitutions.
  • The problem decomposes into independent subproblems per word, so counts can be summed.
  • Time complexity is linear in the total number of characters; space can be constant if done in-place.
  • Edge cases: empty strings, single-character words, and words with no adjacent duplicates.

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

Q2

Given an array of unique integers, find the minimum number of elements to remove so that deleting at most one more element from the result would leave the array strictly ascending.

Algorithms & Data Structures
Author's notes

This one got me.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

First, clarify the problem: you need to remove the minimum number of elements so that the resulting array can be made strictly ascending by deleting at most one more element. This is equivalent to finding the longest subsequence that is 'almost strictly increasing' (allowing one violation). Then, compute the minimum removals as the array length minus the length of this longest subsequence. Use dynamic programming to track the longest valid subsequence ending at each index with 0 or 1 deletion used.

Pro tip: Demonstrate strong problem-solving by discussing both the DP solution and potential optimizations (e.g., using patience sorting for LIS variants). Also, mention edge cases like arrays already strictly ascending or with only one element, and clarify the 'at most one more deletion' condition to ensure alignment with the interviewer.

1. Clarify the problem

Restate the problem in your own words and confirm with the interviewer. Ensure you understand that after removing elements, the resulting array must be such that deleting at most one more element makes it strictly ascending.

2. Identify the core problem

Recognize that this is equivalent to finding the longest subsequence that is strictly increasing except for at most one violation (i.e., one pair of adjacent elements where the order is not strictly increasing).

3. Design a dynamic programming solution

Define DP states: dp0[i] = length of longest valid subsequence ending at i with 0 deletions used; dp1[i] = length with 1 deletion used. Transition by considering previous elements and whether adding current element maintains the property.

4. Compute and return the result

After filling the DP table, the maximum value in dp0 and dp1 gives the length of the longest valid subsequence. The minimum removals is n minus this maximum length.

5. Analyze complexity and test

State the time complexity (O(n^2) for the DP) and space complexity (O(n)). Walk through a few test cases, including edge cases, to verify correctness.

Key Points to Mention

  • The problem reduces to finding the longest subsequence that is strictly increasing with at most one violation.
  • Dynamic programming with two states: 0 deletions used and 1 deletion used.
  • Transition rules: for dp0, only allow strictly increasing; for dp1, allow either extending a dp0 sequence with a violation or extending a dp1 sequence without violation.
  • The answer is n - max(max(dp0), max(dp1)).
  • Time complexity O(n^2) and space O(n); mention potential optimization to O(n log n) using advanced techniques.
  • Edge cases: empty array, single element, already strictly ascending, and arrays requiring more than one deletion.

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