← Google Interview Insights

Google·Software Engineer·Onsite - System Design / Architecture·Senior

SeniorPrefer not to say
May 2026

Summary

Google SWE interview that went deep on data structure design, specifically around a cursor-based sequence structure. The whole thing was a design-plus-implementation combo which I wasn't fully expecting, and the complexity trade-off discussion at the end caught me a bit flat-footed.

Questions Asked (1)

Q1

Design and implement a data structure that stores elements contiguously and tracks a cursor position. It needs to support inserting a segment of elements at a given index, deleting a segment, moving a segment from one position to another, and repositioning the cursor. Walk through your choice of underlying representation and the time complexity of each operation.

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

I went with a gap buffer approach after briefly considering a plain array and a linked list.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements and constraints, then propose a balanced tree (e.g., rope or implicit treap) as the underlying representation, explaining how it supports segment operations efficiently. Walk through each operation with time complexity, and discuss trade-offs versus simpler structures like arrays or linked lists.

Pro tip: Demonstrate awareness of real-world constraints by mentioning that Google often values scalability and cache efficiency; consider discussing how a B-tree or skip list might be used in practice for better memory locality, even if a balanced BST is the theoretical answer.

1. Clarify Requirements and Constraints

Ask about expected data size, frequency of operations, and whether elements are of fixed type. Confirm that operations are on segments (contiguous ranges) and that cursor position is a single index.

2. Choose Underlying Representation

Propose a balanced binary search tree (e.g., implicit treap or rope) where each node stores a segment of elements and subtree sizes. Explain why arrays/linked lists are inefficient for insert/delete/move.

3. Detail Operations and Time Complexity

For each operation (insert, delete, move, reposition cursor), describe the algorithm using split/merge on the tree, and state the time complexity (typically O(log n) for balanced trees).

4. Discuss Trade-offs and Optimizations

Compare with alternative structures (e.g., gap buffer, piece table) and mention potential optimizations like lazy propagation or block-based storage for cache efficiency.

5. Summarize and Conclude

Recap the chosen design, its complexities, and why it meets the requirements. Mention any assumptions made and possible extensions.

Key Points to Mention

  • Implicit treap or rope as a balanced tree with subtree sizes for index-based access.
  • Split and merge operations to isolate segments for insert, delete, and move.
  • Time complexity: O(log n) for insert, delete, move, and cursor reposition; O(log n) for access if needed.
  • Cursor can be represented as an index and updated in O(1) after operations if we track offsets, or O(log n) if we need to find the node.
  • Trade-offs: arrays have O(n) insert/delete but O(1) access; linked lists have O(1) insert/delete if position known but O(n) access.
  • Real-world considerations: memory overhead of tree nodes, cache efficiency, and potential use of B-trees or skip lists for better performance.

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