← Anthropic Interview Insights
I started with hashing right away and the interviewer immediately asked why I wasn't grouping by size first.
Start by clarifying requirements and constraints, then outline a multi-pass approach that uses file size as a cheap filter, partial hashes (e.g., first/last few KB) to reduce I/O, and full hashes only when necessary. Discuss how to handle edge cases like permission errors, symbolic links, and large files, and emphasize minimizing disk I/O through caching and incremental hashing.
Pro tip: Mention that you would use a streaming hash (e.g., SHA-256) and read files in chunks to avoid loading entire large files into memory, and that you would cache file metadata (size, mtime) to skip re-hashing unchanged files in subsequent runs.
Ask about the expected scale (number of files, total size), whether the directory tree is static or changing, and if there are any specific performance or memory constraints. Confirm that 'identical byte content' means exact match, not similarity.
First, traverse the directory tree and group files by size (cheap metadata). For groups with more than one file, compute a quick partial hash (e.g., first and last 4KB) to further narrow candidates. Finally, compute full hashes only for files that still collide, minimizing disk I/O.
Handle permission errors by logging and skipping inaccessible files. For symbolic links, decide whether to follow them (with cycle detection) or treat them as distinct entries; typically, avoid following to prevent loops and duplicate content. For large files, use streaming reads with a fixed buffer size.
Use memory-mapped files or buffered streams to read efficiently. Cache hashes and metadata to avoid re-computation. Consider parallelizing hashing with a thread pool, but be mindful of disk contention.
Compare hashing algorithms (MD5 vs SHA-256) for speed vs collision resistance. Mention that for very large datasets, a distributed approach or external sorting might be needed. Also, discuss whether to store results in memory or on disk.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.