← Discord Interview Insights

Discord·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Intermediate

Intermediate
Jul 2026

Summary

Discord data engineer round, pretty much one meaty SQL question with a follow-up that caught me a bit flat-footed. Technical phone screen vibes, focused entirely on time-series aggregation.

Questions Asked (2)

Q1

Using a server_view table with columns for server ID, user ID, and timestamp, write a SQL query that calculates week-over-week change in server views across the past 12 months. For each ISO week, return both the absolute and percent change compared to the prior week.

Product Analytics & MetricsData Modeling
Author's notes

I got the core aggregation down fine, LAG() over the weekly partition, pretty standard.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by aggregating views per ISO week using DATE_TRUNC('week', timestamp) or EXTRACT(ISOYEAR FROM timestamp) and EXTRACT(WEEK FROM timestamp) to ensure correct ISO week boundaries. Then use a window function like LAG to compare each week's total to the previous week, computing absolute and percent change. Filter to the last 12 months and handle edge cases like zero previous week views.

Pro tip: Mention that ISO weeks can span year boundaries, so using EXTRACT(ISOYEAR) and EXTRACT(WEEK) together is safer than DATE_TRUNC alone. Also, consider using a calendar table or generate_series to include weeks with zero views, ensuring accurate week-over-week comparisons.

1. Define the time window and ISO week grouping

Filter the server_view table to the past 12 months based on the timestamp column. Extract the ISO year and ISO week number to group views correctly, being mindful of year boundaries.

2. Aggregate views per ISO week

Count the number of views (or distinct users if specified) for each ISO week. Use a CTE or subquery to produce a clean weekly summary with columns for ISO year, ISO week, and total views.

3. Compute week-over-week changes

Use the LAG window function ordered by ISO year and week to get the previous week's view count. Calculate absolute change as current_views - previous_views and percent change as (current_views - previous_views) / NULLIF(previous_views, 0) * 100.

4. Handle edge cases and finalize output

Ensure the first week has NULL or 0 for changes, and handle division by zero using NULLIF. Optionally, format the percent change to two decimal places and order results chronologically.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of ISO week functions (EXTRACT(ISOYEAR FROM timestamp), EXTRACT(WEEK FROM timestamp)) to correctly handle weeks spanning year boundaries.
  • Window function LAG to access previous week's aggregated views without self-joins.
  • Handling NULL or zero previous week values to avoid division by zero in percent change calculation.
  • Filtering to the last 12 months using a date condition like timestamp >= CURRENT_DATE - INTERVAL '12 months'.
  • Consideration of weeks with no views (e.g., using a calendar table or generate_series) to ensure accurate week-over-week comparisons.
  • Ordering the final result by ISO year and week to present a chronological trend.

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

Q2

How would you handle weeks with zero views so they still appear explicitly in the output rather than being silently dropped? Walk through using a calendar/spine table or generating a week series to fill gaps.

Data ModelingTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This is where I felt underprepared.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by acknowledging the core problem: aggregation queries drop weeks with no data because they only return rows for existing records. Then present two main solutions—a static calendar/spine table and a dynamically generated week series—and compare their trade-offs in terms of maintenance, performance, and flexibility. Finally, show how to LEFT JOIN the aggregated views to the spine and use COALESCE to replace NULLs with zeros.

Pro tip: Mention that a calendar table can be pre-populated with additional attributes like fiscal weeks or holidays, making it reusable across many queries and reducing repeated date logic. Also note that generating a series on the fly can be more flexible for ad-hoc date ranges but may have performance implications at scale.

1. Identify the gap

Explain that standard GROUP BY week queries only return weeks with data, so weeks with zero views are missing. This leads to misleading trends and incomplete reports.

2. Choose a spine strategy

Decide between a persistent calendar/spine table (pre-built, indexed, reusable) and a dynamically generated week series (using recursive CTEs or generate_series). Discuss trade-offs: maintenance vs. flexibility, performance, and storage.

3. Generate or select the week series

If using a table, query the relevant date range from it. If generating, use a recursive CTE or database-specific function to produce a complete list of weeks covering the desired period.

4. Join and fill gaps

LEFT JOIN the week series to the aggregated views data on the week key. Use COALESCE or IFNULL to replace NULL view counts with 0, ensuring every week appears with an explicit value.

5. Validate and optimize

Check that the output includes all weeks, including those with zero. Consider indexing the spine table and the join key for performance, and discuss how this scales with large date ranges.

Key Points to Mention

  • Calendar/spine table: pre-populated, reusable, supports complex date attributes, but requires maintenance and storage.
  • Dynamic week series: generated via recursive CTE or generate_series, flexible for ad-hoc ranges, but may be less performant for large ranges.
  • LEFT JOIN from spine to aggregated data to preserve all weeks.
  • COALESCE/IFNULL to convert NULLs to zeros for explicit zero-view weeks.
  • Performance considerations: indexing the spine table, limiting date range, and potential materialization.
  • Trade-offs: simplicity vs. flexibility, maintenance overhead vs. query complexity, and scalability.

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