← Netflix Interview Insights

Netflix·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Intermediate

Intermediate
Jun 2026

Summary

Netflix software engineering interview with three back-to-back coding problems. Nothing too wild algorithmically but the follow-up design questions on the cache one caught me a bit off guard. Overall felt like a solid mid-level coding screen.

Questions Asked (3)

Q1

Implement an in-memory key-value cache where each entry has a time-to-live. Include put and get operations, and design a background cleanup process for expired entries.

System DesignAlgorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

Started fine with a plain hashmap storing value plus expiration timestamp.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements (e.g., concurrency, eviction policy, TTL precision) and then propose a design using a hash map for O(1) access and a min-heap or timing wheel for efficient expiration. Discuss trade-offs between different cleanup strategies (lazy vs. active) and how to handle concurrency and memory management.

Pro tip: Mention that Netflix often deals with high-throughput, low-latency systems, so emphasize scalability and avoiding global locks—consider sharding the cache or using read-write locks per bucket. Also, discuss how you would monitor and tune the cleanup process in production.

1. Clarify Requirements

Ask about expected throughput, latency, concurrency needs, TTL granularity, and eviction policies. Confirm whether the cache should be thread-safe and if memory usage is a concern.

2. Design Core Data Structures

Propose a hash map for key-value storage and a priority queue (min-heap) or timing wheel for expiration ordering. Explain how to achieve O(1) average get/put and O(log n) or O(1) expiration handling.

3. Implement TTL and Cleanup

Describe lazy expiration on get (check TTL and remove if expired) and an active background thread that periodically scans and removes expired entries. Discuss how to avoid blocking operations and handle concurrency.

4. Address Concurrency and Scalability

Explain how to make the cache thread-safe using fine-grained locking (e.g., per-bucket locks) or lock-free structures. Consider sharding to reduce contention and improve scalability.

5. Discuss Trade-offs and Optimizations

Compare lazy vs. active cleanup, min-heap vs. timing wheel, and memory overhead. Mention potential improvements like using a doubly-linked list for LRU eviction or adaptive TTL.

Key Points to Mention

  • Time complexity: O(1) average for get/put, O(log n) for heap-based expiration.
  • Concurrency: use of read-write locks, sharding, or concurrent data structures to avoid bottlenecks.
  • Cleanup strategies: lazy expiration on access vs. background thread; trade-offs in latency and resource usage.
  • Memory management: handling expired entries to prevent memory leaks; possibly using weak references.
  • Eviction policies: if cache is full, consider LRU or LFU in addition to TTL.
  • Production considerations: monitoring, metrics, and tuning cleanup frequency for high-throughput systems.

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

Q2

Build an undo manager that executes commands and supports undoing the most recent one. Define what happens when there's nothing to undo, and extend it to support redo.

Algorithms & Data StructuresAPI & Integrations
Author's notes

Stack-based, pretty textbook.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements and defining the command interface, then implement a stack-based undo manager with clear no-op behavior. Extend to redo by adding a second stack, ensuring that new commands clear the redo stack.

Pro tip: Mention that undo/redo should be idempotent and thread-safe if needed, and discuss how to handle memory by limiting history size—this shows production-level thinking.

1. Clarify requirements and define the command interface

Ask about expected behavior when there's nothing to undo (e.g., no-op or throw exception) and whether redo should be supported. Define a Command interface with execute() and undo() methods.

2. Implement undo with a stack

Use a stack to store executed commands. On undo, pop the most recent command and call its undo() method. If the stack is empty, handle gracefully (e.g., return false or throw a specific exception).

3. Extend to redo with a second stack

Add a redo stack. When undoing, push the undone command onto the redo stack. When redoing, pop from the redo stack, execute the command, and push it back onto the undo stack.

4. Handle new commands and edge cases

When a new command is executed, clear the redo stack to maintain correct history. Also consider thread safety, memory limits, and whether commands can be merged.

5. Discuss testing and complexity

Mention unit tests for edge cases (empty stacks, multiple undos/redos) and analyze time complexity (O(1) for undo/redo) and space complexity (O(n) for history).

Key Points to Mention

  • Command pattern with execute() and undo() methods
  • Stack data structure for LIFO order
  • No-op or exception when nothing to undo
  • Redo stack and clearing it on new command
  • Thread safety and memory management considerations
  • Time and space complexity analysis

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

Q3

Given an organization hierarchy as a rooted tree where each node has an id and children, implement a depth-first traversal returning node ids in DFS order.

Algorithms & Data Structures
Author's notes

Easiest of the three.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Clarify the tree structure and traversal order (pre-order), then implement a recursive DFS that appends node ids as visited. Discuss iterative alternative using a stack to handle deep trees and avoid recursion limits.

Pro tip: Mention that DFS order can be pre-order, in-order, or post-order; confirm which one is expected. Also note that for very deep trees, an iterative approach prevents stack overflow, showing production awareness.

1. Clarify requirements

Confirm the traversal order (pre-order) and input/output format. Ask if the tree can be deep or if recursion is acceptable.

2. Choose approach

Decide between recursive and iterative. Recursive is simpler; iterative with explicit stack is safer for deep trees.

3. Implement traversal

For recursive: visit node, then recurse on children. For iterative: use a stack, push children in reverse order to process left-to-right.

4. Test and analyze

Test with edge cases (empty tree, single node, skewed tree). Analyze time O(n) and space O(h) for recursion or O(n) for iterative.

Key Points to Mention

  • Pre-order traversal: visit node before its children.
  • Recursive implementation: simple but risks stack overflow for deep trees.
  • Iterative implementation: use a stack, push children in reverse order for correct left-to-right traversal.
  • Time complexity: O(n) where n is number of nodes.
  • Space complexity: O(h) for recursion (h = height), O(n) for iterative in worst case.
  • Edge cases: empty tree, single node, skewed tree (linked list-like).

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