← Roblox Interview Insights

Roblox·Machine Learning Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Senior

Senior
May 2026

Summary

Roblox ML engineer interview had me extending a classic leetcode problem into something with real system design teeth. The follow-up questions about concurrency and memory cleanup were where it got interesting.

Questions Asked (4)

Q1

Extend a basic hit counter to support per-user rate limiting: implement hit(userId, timestamp) and getHits(userId, timestamp) where getHits returns the count of hits in the last 5 minutes for that user.

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem Design
Author's notes

I went straight to a dictionary of deques, which was the right call, but I fumbled a bit explaining the sliding window cleanup inside getHits.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Clarify that the solution should support multiple users with efficient per-user rate limiting. Propose a design using a hash map from userId to a queue (or deque) of timestamps, where each hit appends the timestamp and each getHits removes timestamps older than 5 minutes and returns the queue size. Discuss time and space complexity, and consider concurrency and scalability for a production system.

Pro tip: Mention that for high-scale systems like Roblox, you might use a distributed cache like Redis with sorted sets or a sliding window counter to handle millions of users, and discuss trade-offs between exact and approximate counting.

1. Clarify requirements and constraints

Ask about expected scale (number of users, hits per second), concurrency needs, and whether exact counts are required. Confirm the time window is fixed at 5 minutes.

2. Design the data structure

Propose a hash map where each key is a userId and the value is a queue (or deque) of timestamps. Explain that this allows O(1) amortized insertion and O(k) cleanup for getHits, where k is the number of expired hits.

3. Implement hit and getHits operations

For hit(userId, timestamp), append the timestamp to the user's queue. For getHits(userId, timestamp), remove all timestamps older than timestamp - 300 seconds from the front of the queue, then return the queue size.

4. Analyze complexity and edge cases

Discuss time complexity: hit is O(1), getHits is O(k) where k is expired entries. Space is O(total hits in window). Handle edge cases like empty queue, out-of-order timestamps, and memory cleanup for inactive users.

5. Discuss scalability and production considerations

Mention how to scale: sharding by userId, using Redis sorted sets with ZADD and ZREMRANGEBYSCORE, or approximate methods like sliding window counters. Address concurrency with locks or atomic operations.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use a hash map (dictionary) keyed by userId to isolate per-user data.
  • Store timestamps in a queue or deque to maintain order and allow efficient removal of old entries.
  • For getHits, remove timestamps older than 5 minutes from the front of the queue before counting.
  • Time complexity: hit is O(1), getHits is O(k) where k is the number of expired hits; space is O(total hits in window).
  • For production, consider distributed solutions like Redis sorted sets or sliding window counters to handle scale and concurrency.
  • Address memory management: periodically clean up inactive users or use TTL to avoid unbounded growth.

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

Q2

How would you handle memory cleanup for users who haven't had any activity in a long time?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

Blanked for a second here.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the context: what 'memory' refers to (e.g., user embeddings, session data, cached features) and the scale (millions of users). Then propose a tiered lifecycle strategy: active users stay in fast memory, inactive users are demoted to warm/cold storage, and eventually deleted based on business rules. Emphasize trade-offs between memory savings, model freshness, and potential re-engagement costs.

Pro tip: Mention that you would instrument and monitor the cleanup process to measure impact on model performance and user experience, and use a canary rollout to avoid unintended consequences.

1. Clarify requirements and constraints

Ask questions to understand what data is stored, how it's used, and what the business goals are (e.g., cost reduction vs. model accuracy). Identify SLAs for reactivation and any privacy/regulatory constraints.

2. Define inactivity and data lifecycle stages

Propose thresholds for inactivity (e.g., 30, 90, 180 days) and map data to stages: hot (in-memory), warm (disk/DB), cold (blob storage), and deleted. Consider gradual demotion rather than immediate deletion.

3. Design the cleanup mechanism

Outline a batch or streaming job that periodically scans for inactive users, moves or deletes their data, and updates any indices. Ensure idempotency and handle failures gracefully.

4. Evaluate trade-offs and impact

Discuss how cleanup affects model performance (e.g., cold-start for returning users), system latency, and cost. Propose metrics to track and a rollback plan.

5. Monitor and iterate

Set up monitoring for memory usage, job success, and model metrics. Use A/B testing or canary releases to validate the approach and adjust thresholds based on feedback.

Key Points to Mention

  • Tiered storage (hot/warm/cold) and gradual demotion to balance cost and performance
  • Inactivity thresholds based on business metrics (e.g., user lifetime value, re-engagement rates)
  • Handling cold-start problem for returning users (e.g., fallback models, re-computation on demand)
  • Batch vs. streaming cleanup and scheduling (e.g., daily off-peak jobs)
  • Monitoring and alerting for cleanup job health and model degradation
  • Privacy and compliance considerations (e.g., GDPR right to be forgotten, data retention policies)

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

Q3

How would you make this hit counter thread-safe under concurrent calls?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This is where I got a little tripped up.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the requirements: expected concurrency level, accuracy needs, and performance constraints. Then propose thread-safe solutions like atomic operations, locks, or sharded counters, and discuss trade-offs between simplicity, scalability, and accuracy. Finally, relate the solution to ML engineering contexts, such as counting model inferences or feature updates.

Pro tip: Mention that in ML systems, counters often track metrics like inference counts or feature frequencies, so you might need to balance accuracy with throughput; consider using approximate counters or batching to reduce contention.

1. Clarify Requirements

Ask about the expected concurrency level, accuracy requirements, and performance constraints to tailor your solution.

2. Identify Thread-Safety Issues

Explain that a simple increment (read-modify-write) is not atomic and can lead to lost updates under concurrent calls.

3. Propose Solutions

Suggest using atomic operations (e.g., AtomicInteger), locks (e.g., mutex), or sharded counters to ensure thread safety.

4. Discuss Trade-offs

Compare solutions: atomics are simple but may contend; locks are flexible but can bottleneck; sharding scales but complicates reads.

5. Relate to ML Context

Connect to ML engineering, e.g., counting model inferences or feature updates, and mention how approximate counters or batching can help.

Key Points to Mention

  • Atomic operations (e.g., AtomicInteger, compare-and-swap)
  • Mutex locks and their performance implications
  • Sharded or distributed counters for scalability
  • Trade-offs between accuracy, latency, and throughput
  • Approximate counting techniques (e.g., count-min sketch) for high concurrency
  • Real-world ML examples like tracking inference counts or feature frequencies

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

Q4

How would you extend this design to support a configurable time window instead of a hardcoded 5-minute limit?

System DesignAPI & Integrations
Author's notes

Easy one to close on.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the current design and where the 5-minute limit is enforced, then propose making the window a configurable parameter with a sensible default. Discuss how to propagate the configuration through the system, handle validation and edge cases, and ensure the change is backward-compatible and testable.

Pro tip: Emphasize the importance of a configuration management strategy (e.g., feature flags, environment variables, or a config service) and mention the need for monitoring and alerting on the new parameter to catch misconfigurations early.

1. Identify the hardcoded limit

Locate where the 5-minute limit is defined and enforced in the codebase, including any related logic such as time comparisons or window calculations.

2. Introduce a configuration parameter

Replace the hardcoded value with a configurable parameter (e.g., via environment variable, config file, or feature flag) and set a default of 5 minutes to maintain backward compatibility.

3. Propagate configuration

Ensure the parameter is accessible where needed, possibly through dependency injection or a central config service, and update all relevant components to use it.

4. Handle validation and edge cases

Add validation for the parameter (e.g., positive integer, reasonable bounds) and consider edge cases like zero, negative, or extremely large values, as well as time unit consistency.

5. Test and monitor

Write unit and integration tests for various window values, and set up monitoring/logging to track the configured value and detect anomalies in production.

Key Points to Mention

  • Configuration management (e.g., environment variables, config files, feature flags, or a dynamic config service)
  • Backward compatibility and default value (5 minutes) to avoid breaking existing behavior
  • Validation and bounds checking for the configurable parameter
  • Propagation of configuration through the system (e.g., dependency injection, global config object)
  • Testing strategy (unit tests for different window sizes, integration tests)
  • Monitoring and observability (logging the configured value, alerting on misconfigurations)

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