← Google Interview Insights

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

SeniorPrefer not to say
Jun 2026

Summary

System design round at Google for a software engineer role. The whole thing was basically one big distributed systems question about building a global metrics platform, and it went deep fast.

Questions Asked (3)

Q1

Design a metrics collection system that ingests high-volume counters, gauges, and histograms from services across multiple global data centers, stores them, and serves dashboards and alerts with low query latency.

System DesignTechnical Trade-offsData Modeling
Author's notes

I started with the write path since the throughput constraint was the obvious anchor.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements and scale (e.g., number of services, metrics per second, retention, query patterns). Then propose a distributed architecture with separate ingestion, storage, and query layers, using techniques like sharding, replication, and tiered storage. Finally, discuss trade-offs and optimizations for low-latency dashboards and alerts.

Pro tip: Emphasize the importance of a columnar time-series database (e.g., Bigtable, Monarch-like) and pre-aggregation for dashboards, while ensuring high availability and fault tolerance across data centers.

1. Clarify Requirements and Scale

Ask about the number of services, metrics volume (e.g., millions of data points per second), retention policies, query latency SLAs, and global distribution needs.

2. Design Ingestion Pipeline

Propose a scalable ingestion layer with load balancers, message queues (e.g., Kafka) for buffering, and regional collectors to handle high throughput and avoid data loss.

3. Choose Storage and Data Model

Select a time-series database (e.g., Bigtable, Monarch) with a schema optimized for writes and reads, using sharding by metric name and time, and replication across data centers.

4. Implement Query and Alerting

Design a query layer with caching and pre-aggregation for dashboards, and a separate alerting system that evaluates rules on recent data with low latency.

5. Address Trade-offs and Optimizations

Discuss consistency vs. availability, cost vs. performance, and techniques like downsampling, tiered storage, and edge aggregation to reduce load.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of a distributed time-series database (e.g., Bigtable, Monarch) with sharding and replication for scalability and fault tolerance.
  • Ingestion pipeline with message queues (e.g., Kafka) to handle high volume and provide backpressure.
  • Pre-aggregation and caching for low-latency dashboard queries.
  • Alerting system that evaluates rules on streaming data with minimal delay.
  • Global data center considerations: data locality, replication, and consistency trade-offs.
  • Retention policies and downsampling to manage storage costs.

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

Q2

How would you handle cross-region replication and federation for metric data, and what are the consistency trade-offs when querying across regions?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This was basically a follow-up but felt like its own question.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the scale, latency, and consistency requirements, then propose a multi-region architecture with replication and federation. Discuss trade-offs between consistency models (e.g., eventual vs. strong) and how they affect query results and system design.

Pro tip: Emphasize that consistency requirements are often per-query or per-use-case, not global; propose a tunable consistency model to balance latency and accuracy. Also, mention the importance of monitoring replication lag and providing staleness indicators to users.

1. Clarify Requirements

Ask about data volume, query patterns, latency SLAs, and consistency needs (e.g., real-time vs. analytical). This shapes the replication and federation strategy.

2. Design Replication Strategy

Choose between synchronous vs. asynchronous replication, and decide on data partitioning and replication topology (e.g., star, mesh). Consider using a global metric store with regional replicas.

3. Design Federation Layer

Implement a query federation layer that routes queries to regional replicas and merges results. Handle partial failures and timeouts gracefully.

4. Analyze Consistency Trade-offs

Discuss CAP theorem implications: strong consistency increases latency and reduces availability during partitions; eventual consistency improves performance but may return stale data. Propose tunable consistency (e.g., quorum reads/writes) and explain how to surface staleness to users.

5. Address Operational Concerns

Cover monitoring replication lag, handling region failures, and cost implications. Suggest mechanisms like read-repair or anti-entropy for eventual consistency.

Key Points to Mention

  • CAP theorem and PACELC: trade-offs between consistency, availability, and latency
  • Replication strategies: synchronous vs. asynchronous, and their impact on RPO/RTO
  • Federation query patterns: scatter-gather, push-down predicates, and result merging
  • Consistency models: strong, eventual, causal, and read-your-writes
  • Handling replication lag: staleness indicators, time-bound reads, and fallback to primary
  • Google-specific technologies: Spanner, Bigtable, or Cloud Monitoring for context

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

Q3

How would you approach downsampling or sampling of metric data to manage storage costs and query performance at scale?

System DesignProduct Analytics & Metrics
Author's notes

Talked about time-based rollups, keeping raw data for maybe 24 hours then aggregating to minute-level, then hour-level.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the scale and requirements (e.g., data volume, query patterns, retention, accuracy needs). Then propose a multi-tiered strategy combining downsampling, aggregation, and retention policies, balancing storage savings with query performance and analytical needs. Finally, discuss implementation details like rollup pipelines, time-series databases, and trade-offs.

Pro tip: Emphasize that downsampling should be driven by query patterns and business needs, not just storage costs—preserving high-resolution data for recent periods and critical metrics while aggressively downsampling older or less critical data. Also mention the importance of monitoring and iterating on sampling strategies.

1. Clarify Requirements and Constraints

Ask about data volume, query patterns, latency requirements, retention policies, and accuracy needs to tailor the solution.

2. Design a Multi-Tiered Storage Strategy

Propose storing raw data for a short period, then downsampling to coarser resolutions (e.g., 1-minute, 5-minute, 1-hour) for longer retention, possibly using different storage tiers.

3. Choose Downsampling Techniques

Discuss aggregation methods (avg, min, max, percentiles) and sampling techniques (uniform, reservoir, adaptive) based on metric type and query needs.

4. Implement Rollup Pipelines

Describe how to build pipelines (e.g., using stream processing or batch jobs) to compute and store downsampled data, ensuring idempotency and handling late data.

5. Optimize Query Performance and Cost

Explain how to route queries to appropriate resolution, use caching, and leverage time-series databases with downsampling support (e.g., Prometheus, TimescaleDB).

Key Points to Mention

  • Trade-offs between storage cost, query performance, and data accuracy
  • Time-based retention policies and tiered storage (hot/warm/cold)
  • Aggregation functions (avg, sum, percentiles) and their impact on query results
  • Handling of late-arriving data and idempotent rollups
  • Use of time-series databases and their native downsampling features
  • Monitoring and adjusting downsampling strategies based on usage patterns

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