← Databricks Interview Insights

Databricks·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Senior

SeniorPrefer not to say
May 2026

Summary

Databricks software engineering interview that went deep into graph algorithms pretty fast. The core problem was shortest path in a transit network, but the real test was how far you could push the extensions.

Questions Asked (4)

Q1

Given a city modeled as a graph where nodes are locations and edges are transit segments with travel times, find the minimum-time route between two points. How would you approach this, and what algorithm would you use?

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem Design
Author's notes

Dijkstra, fine, got there.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the problem constraints: whether edge weights are non-negative, if the graph is static or dynamic, and the expected scale. Then, propose Dijkstra's algorithm with a priority queue for non-negative weights, and discuss optimizations like A* with a heuristic or bidirectional search for large graphs. Finally, address practical considerations such as memory usage, parallelism, and handling real-time updates.

Pro tip: Mention that for very large graphs, you might use contraction hierarchies or goal-directed techniques like A* to reduce the search space, and note that Databricks' distributed computing could parallelize the algorithm across partitions.

1. Clarify Requirements

Ask about graph size, edge weight properties (non-negative?), static vs. dynamic, and whether preprocessing is allowed. This shows you consider practical constraints before jumping to a solution.

2. Choose Algorithm

For non-negative weights, Dijkstra's algorithm is optimal. If weights can be negative, Bellman-Ford is needed. For large graphs, consider A* with a heuristic or bidirectional Dijkstra.

3. Optimize with Data Structures

Use a priority queue (min-heap) for efficient extraction of the minimum distance node. Discuss using a Fibonacci heap for theoretical improvement or a binary heap for practical performance.

4. Handle Scale and Real-time Updates

For massive graphs, discuss partitioning, parallelization (e.g., using Spark), or preprocessing techniques like contraction hierarchies. For dynamic graphs, consider incremental algorithms.

5. Analyze Complexity and Trade-offs

State time complexity O((V+E) log V) with a binary heap, and space complexity O(V). Compare with alternatives like A* (faster with good heuristic) and Bellman-Ford (O(VE)).

Key Points to Mention

  • Dijkstra's algorithm for non-negative edge weights
  • Priority queue (min-heap) implementation and complexity
  • A* search with admissible heuristic for speedup
  • Bidirectional search to reduce explored nodes
  • Handling large-scale graphs with distributed computing (e.g., Spark)
  • Dynamic updates and incremental algorithms

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

Q2

How would you extend the shortest-path solution to handle multiple competing criteria, like minimizing travel time versus minimizing the number of transfers?

Algorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This is where it got interesting and also where I started to sweat a little.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by framing the problem as multi-objective shortest path, then discuss two main strategies: scalarization (weighted sum) and Pareto-optimal approaches (e.g., multi-criteria Dijkstra). Explain trade-offs between them, and mention practical considerations like dynamic weights and scalability.

Pro tip: Show awareness that in real systems like Databricks, you often need to balance latency and cost, so being able to tune weights or maintain a Pareto frontier is key. Also, mention that the choice depends on whether the user wants a single best path or a set of trade-off options.

1. Clarify objectives and constraints

Identify the competing criteria (e.g., time, transfers) and whether they are additive, multiplicative, or have hard constraints. Ask if the goal is a single optimal path or a set of Pareto-optimal paths.

2. Choose a modeling approach

Decide between scalarization (combine criteria into a single weight) or multi-criteria optimization (maintain Pareto frontier). Discuss pros and cons: scalarization is simple but requires weight tuning; Pareto methods are more informative but computationally heavier.

3. Adapt the algorithm

For scalarization, modify edge weights to a weighted sum and run Dijkstra. For Pareto, extend Dijkstra to store non-dominated labels per node, pruning dominated paths.

4. Address scalability and performance

Discuss how the number of criteria affects complexity. For Pareto, the frontier size can grow exponentially; suggest pruning, approximation, or using A* with heuristics. Mention parallelization or incremental updates if graph is large.

5. Evaluate and iterate

Propose metrics to evaluate solutions (e.g., hypervolume, user satisfaction). Suggest A/B testing or simulation to tune weights or select the best trade-off based on user feedback.

Key Points to Mention

  • Multi-objective shortest path (MOSP) and Pareto optimality
  • Scalarization: weighted sum, lexicographic ordering, and epsilon-constraint method
  • Multi-criteria Dijkstra (label-setting) with dominance pruning
  • Complexity: Pareto frontier size can be exponential in number of criteria
  • Practical trade-offs: weight tuning, user preferences, dynamic weights
  • Real-world applications: routing with time and transfers, cloud cost vs. latency

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

Q3

How would you handle edges whose weights change based on the time of day, like a bus that only runs on a schedule?

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem Design
Author's notes

Didn't see this one coming in the way they framed it.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying that this is a time-dependent graph problem where edge weights are functions of time, so the graph is dynamic. Then discuss modeling approaches such as time-expanded graphs or time-dependent edge weight functions, and algorithms like time-dependent Dijkstra that respect FIFO property. Finally, address practical system design considerations like schedule data representation, caching, and real-time updates.

Pro tip: Mention the FIFO property (waiting longer never gets you there earlier) and how it's required for Dijkstra to work correctly; also note that if the graph is not FIFO, you may need to use time-expanded graphs or more complex algorithms. This shows depth and avoids a common pitfall.

1. Clarify the problem

Ask whether edge weights are deterministic functions of time (e.g., schedules) or stochastic, and whether the graph is static otherwise. Confirm if the goal is to find shortest paths at a given departure time or across all times.

2. Model the time-dependent graph

Represent each edge weight as a function w(e, t) giving travel time if departing at time t. Alternatively, use a time-expanded graph where each node is duplicated per time step, converting time-dependent edges into static edges between time layers.

3. Choose an algorithm

For time-dependent graphs with FIFO property, use a time-dependent variant of Dijkstra where the priority queue key is arrival time. For non-FIFO or schedule-based, consider time-expanded graphs with standard Dijkstra or A*.

4. Address system design aspects

Discuss how to store and query schedule data efficiently (e.g., GTFS format, interval trees), handle real-time updates (e.g., delays), and cache frequent queries. Consider scalability for large graphs.

5. Discuss trade-offs and extensions

Compare time-expanded vs. time-dependent approaches in terms of memory, preprocessing, and query speed. Mention extensions like multi-modal routing, dynamic updates, or handling uncertainty.

Key Points to Mention

  • Time-dependent edge weight functions w(e, t) and the FIFO property
  • Time-expanded graph transformation for schedule-based edges
  • Time-dependent Dijkstra algorithm with arrival time as key
  • Data structures for efficient schedule lookups (e.g., GTFS, interval trees)
  • Handling real-time updates and caching for system design
  • Trade-offs between time-expanded and time-dependent models

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

Q4

How would you update the routing solution in real time as conditions change, for example if a route gets delayed or closed mid-trip?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

Incremental graph updates.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the requirements and constraints, such as scale, latency, and consistency needs, then propose a high-level architecture that ingests real-time events and updates routes dynamically. Discuss trade-offs between different approaches, focusing on how Databricks' strengths (e.g., Spark, Delta Lake, MLflow) can be leveraged for real-time data processing and machine learning.

Pro tip: Emphasize the importance of handling late or out-of-order events and ensuring idempotency, as these are common pitfalls in real-time systems. Also, mention how you would monitor and evaluate the system's performance and adapt to changing conditions.

1. Clarify Requirements

Ask questions to understand the scale (number of vehicles, events per second), latency requirements (how quickly routes must update), and consistency needs (e.g., exactly-once processing).

2. High-Level Architecture

Outline a system that ingests real-time data (e.g., from Kafka), processes it (e.g., using Spark Structured Streaming), and updates routes (e.g., via a routing service). Mention how Databricks services can be integrated.

3. Real-Time Processing Details

Explain how to handle events like delays or closures: use stream processing to detect anomalies, trigger re-routing algorithms, and push updates to clients. Discuss state management and fault tolerance.

4. Trade-offs and Optimizations

Discuss trade-offs between latency and accuracy, cost, and complexity. Mention optimizations like caching, incremental computation, and using ML models for prediction.

5. Monitoring and Evolution

Describe how to monitor system health, collect metrics, and iterate. Highlight the importance of testing with simulated failures and gradually rolling out changes.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of stream processing frameworks (e.g., Spark Structured Streaming, Kafka Streams) for real-time data ingestion and processing.
  • Leveraging Delta Lake for reliable, scalable storage of streaming data and enabling time travel for debugging.
  • Integration with routing algorithms (e.g., Dijkstra, A*) and how to update them dynamically.
  • Handling out-of-order events and ensuring exactly-once semantics using watermarks and idempotent operations.
  • Trade-offs between push vs. pull models for updating clients, and between centralized vs. distributed routing.
  • Use of machine learning (e.g., MLflow) to predict delays and proactively re-route.

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