Start by clarifying metric definitions and requirements (e.g., DAU/MAU definitions, time zones, latency, accuracy). Then walk through the data flow: event ingestion, deduplication, storage, computation, serving, and monitoring. Emphasize trade-offs between accuracy and cost/latency, and propose a scalable architecture using appropriate technologies.
Pro tip: Define DAU/MAU precisely upfront—e.g., 'active' means any event, and a day is based on user's local timezone—and discuss how to handle late data with a lambda architecture or incremental updates. This shows you understand real-world complexities and avoids ambiguity.
Ask questions to pin down DAU/MAU definitions, time zone handling, acceptable latency, and accuracy requirements. Define what constitutes an 'active' user and how to handle late-arriving events.
Outline a scalable ingestion pipeline (e.g., Kafka) that collects events with user IDs and timestamps. Implement deduplication using unique event IDs or idempotent processing to avoid double-counting.
Select storage (e.g., data lake for raw events, OLAP for aggregates) and compute (batch for accuracy, stream for freshness). Discuss partitioning by date and user to enable efficient queries.
Compute daily active users by grouping events by user and local date, then count distinct users. For MAU, aggregate over a rolling 30-day window. Handle late arrivals by reprocessing affected days or using incremental updates.
Expose DAU/MAU via a low-latency API or dashboard, caching results. Monitor data freshness, pipeline health, and metric anomalies to ensure reliability.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.