← Openai Interview Insights

Openai·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Senior

Senior
May 2026

Summary

Got a coding round for a Software Engineer role at OpenAI. The whole thing was one fairly involved design-and-implement problem about a credit ledger, with a bunch of test cases and a complexity discussion tacked on at the end. More work than I expected for a single question.

Questions Asked (2)

Q1

Design and implement an expiring GPU credits ledger that supports multiple users. It needs three operations: adding a credit lot with an expiry time, subtracting credits atomically by consuming lots in earliest-expiry-first order (failing entirely if balance is insufficient), and querying the current balance with a per-lot breakdown. Lots expire when timestamp >= expiry_time.

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

This took me a minute to fully parse.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements and constraints, then propose a data structure that efficiently supports the three operations. For each operation, discuss the algorithm, time/space complexity, and trade-offs. Finally, address edge cases like expiration during operations and concurrency.

Pro tip: Mention that you would use a min-heap or balanced BST keyed by expiry time for efficient earliest-expiry-first consumption, and discuss how to handle lazy expiration versus eager cleanup. Also, consider atomicity and concurrency control for multi-user scenarios.

1. Clarify requirements and constraints

Ask about expected scale (number of users, lots, operations per second), consistency requirements, and whether operations need to be thread-safe or distributed. Clarify if credits can be negative or if partial consumption is allowed.

2. Design data structures

Propose a per-user ledger with lots stored in a min-heap or balanced BST ordered by expiry time. Consider also maintaining a total balance for quick queries, and discuss how to handle expired lots (lazy vs eager).

3. Implement operations

For add: insert lot and update total. For subtract: check total balance, then iterate lots in expiry order, consuming until amount satisfied; if insufficient, rollback. For query: return total and list of non-expired lots with remaining credits.

4. Analyze complexity and trade-offs

Discuss time complexity: add O(log n), subtract O(k log n) where k is number of lots consumed, query O(n) or O(1) with caching. Compare heap vs BST vs sorted list, and lazy vs eager expiration.

5. Address edge cases and concurrency

Handle expiration during operations (e.g., lot expires mid-subtraction), atomicity (use transactions or locks), and multi-user concurrency (per-user locks or optimistic concurrency). Discuss failure scenarios and rollback.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use a min-heap or balanced BST keyed by expiry time to efficiently consume lots in earliest-expiry-first order.
  • Maintain a running total balance for O(1) balance checks, updating it on add, subtract, and expiration.
  • For atomic subtraction, either lock the user's ledger or use a transaction; if insufficient balance, rollback any partial consumption.
  • Handle expiration lazily by checking expiry during operations, or eagerly with a background process; discuss trade-offs.
  • Consider concurrency: per-user locks, optimistic concurrency, or sharding by user ID for scalability.
  • Discuss time and space complexity for each operation and how data structure choice affects performance.

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

Q2

After implementing the ledger, analyze the time and space complexity of each operation, and discuss how you'd optimize for a high volume of operations. How would you achieve O(log n) per update, and how would you handle persisting and restoring the ledger state?

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

I fumbled a bit here.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clearly defining the ledger operations and their expected complexities, then analyze each operation's time and space complexity. Discuss how to achieve O(log n) per update using balanced trees or skip lists, and cover persistence strategies like snapshots and write-ahead logs. Finally, address optimization for high volume through batching, caching, and sharding.

Pro tip: Emphasize the trade-offs between different data structures and persistence methods, and relate them to real-world systems like databases or blockchain ledgers. Show awareness of concurrency and failure recovery.

1. Define Operations and Complexities

List the core ledger operations (e.g., add entry, query balance, verify integrity) and state their expected time and space complexities. Explain why O(log n) per update is desirable.

2. Achieve O(log n) per Update

Describe data structures like balanced BSTs (e.g., AVL, Red-Black) or skip lists that provide O(log n) insertion and lookup. Mention how to maintain order and balance.

3. Optimize for High Volume

Discuss techniques like batching updates, using in-memory caching, sharding by account or time, and asynchronous processing to handle high throughput.

4. Persistence and Recovery

Explain strategies for persisting ledger state: write-ahead logging, periodic snapshots, and incremental backups. Describe how to restore state efficiently after a crash.

5. Trade-offs and Scalability

Summarize trade-offs between consistency, latency, and throughput. Mention how to scale horizontally and ensure fault tolerance.

Key Points to Mention

  • Time and space complexity of operations (e.g., O(log n) for updates, O(n) space for storage)
  • Data structures for O(log n) updates: balanced trees, skip lists, or B-trees
  • Persistence techniques: write-ahead log (WAL), snapshots, and checkpointing
  • Optimizations for high volume: batching, caching, sharding, and concurrency control
  • Recovery process: replaying logs, loading snapshots, and ensuring consistency
  • Trade-offs: latency vs. throughput, memory vs. disk, and consistency vs. availability

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