← Google Interview Insights

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

Senior
Apr 2026

Summary

Google SWE system design round where the whole session was basically one big OOP/design problem about a restaurant waitlist. More depth required than I expected, especially once concurrency came up.

Questions Asked (3)

Q1

Design and implement a restaurant waitlist system with operations to add a party, seat them, cancel their spot, estimate wait time, and list current parties in order.

System DesignAlgorithms & Data StructuresData Modeling
Author's notes

I jumped straight to a queue backed by a list and felt good about it for maybe two minutes.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements and constraints, then propose a data model and algorithm that supports efficient operations. Discuss trade-offs between different data structures and how to handle concurrency and scalability.

Pro tip: Demonstrate awareness of real-world constraints like peak hours and no-shows by suggesting a priority queue with dynamic wait time estimation based on party size and table availability.

1. Clarify Requirements

Ask questions to understand expected scale, operations, and constraints. Confirm whether wait time should be dynamic and if parties can be prioritized.

2. Design Data Model

Define entities like Party, Waitlist, and Table. Choose appropriate data structures (e.g., priority queue, linked list) to support operations efficiently.

3. Outline Algorithms

Describe how each operation (add, seat, cancel, estimate wait, list) will be implemented, including time complexity. Consider using a min-heap for wait time or a balanced tree for ordering.

4. Address Scalability and Concurrency

Discuss how to handle multiple concurrent requests, possibly using locks or optimistic concurrency. Consider partitioning by restaurant location or time slots.

5. Discuss Trade-offs and Extensions

Compare alternative approaches (e.g., simple queue vs. priority queue) and mention potential improvements like SMS notifications or integration with table management.

Key Points to Mention

  • Choice of data structure: priority queue (min-heap) for wait time, balanced BST for ordered listing
  • Time complexity of each operation: O(log n) for add/cancel, O(1) for seat, O(n) for list
  • Handling dynamic wait time estimation based on party size and current table occupancy
  • Concurrency control mechanisms (e.g., mutex locks, optimistic locking) for multi-threaded access
  • Scalability considerations: sharding by restaurant, caching, and load balancing
  • Edge cases: empty waitlist, duplicate entries, party size exceeding capacity

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

Q2

How would you compute an estimated wait time given that tables are partitioned by size and a party might be compatible with multiple table types?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offsAlgorithms & Data Structures
Author's notes

This was the part I felt weakest on.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the problem: define table types, party size compatibility, and how wait times are estimated. Then propose a data model that maps parties to compatible table types and an algorithm that computes wait time based on queue lengths and table turnover rates, considering trade-offs between accuracy and complexity.

Pro tip: Mention that you would use a weighted average of wait times across compatible table types, where weights reflect the likelihood of each table type becoming available, and discuss how to handle real-time updates efficiently.

1. Clarify Requirements and Assumptions

Ask questions to understand the system: How are tables categorized? What is the party size range? How is wait time currently estimated? Are there priorities or reservations?

2. Define Data Structures

Model tables by type (e.g., 2-seat, 4-seat) and parties by size. Create a compatibility mapping (e.g., a party of 3 can use 4-seat or larger tables).

3. Design Estimation Algorithm

For a given party, identify all compatible table types. For each type, estimate wait time based on queue length and average turnover time. Combine these estimates, e.g., by taking the minimum or a weighted average.

4. Address Trade-offs and Optimizations

Discuss trade-offs: accuracy vs. computational cost, real-time updates vs. batch processing. Suggest optimizations like caching or incremental updates.

5. Consider Edge Cases and Scalability

Handle scenarios like large parties, no available tables, or fluctuating demand. Ensure the solution scales with many tables and parties.

Key Points to Mention

  • Compatibility mapping between party sizes and table types (e.g., a party of 2 can sit at a 2-seat or 4-seat table).
  • Queueing theory basics: arrival rate, service rate, and utilization to estimate wait times.
  • Weighted average or minimum wait time across compatible table types, with justification.
  • Real-time data updates: how to maintain accurate wait times as tables become free or parties are seated.
  • Trade-offs between precision and performance, especially for large-scale systems.
  • Handling of special cases: reservations, walk-ins, and table combining/splitting.

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

Q3

How would you handle concurrency if the waitlist system is shared across multiple devices, like a host stand and a tablet used by a different staff member?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

Surprised me a bit.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the requirements: consistency needs, latency tolerance, and failure modes. Then propose a concurrency control strategy, such as optimistic locking with versioning or pessimistic locking, and discuss trade-offs. Finally, address how to handle conflicts and ensure a consistent user experience across devices.

Pro tip: Mention that you would first try to avoid shared mutable state by using an append-only event log or CRDTs, which can simplify concurrency. Also, emphasize the importance of idempotent operations and client-side retries with exponential backoff.

1. Clarify Requirements

Ask about consistency requirements (strong vs eventual), expected load, and whether offline mode is needed. This shapes the concurrency approach.

2. Choose Concurrency Control

Select between optimistic (e.g., version numbers, ETags) and pessimistic (e.g., locks, transactions) concurrency control based on contention and latency needs.

3. Design Conflict Resolution

Define how conflicts are detected and resolved, such as last-write-wins, merge policies, or user prompts. Ensure the resolution is deterministic and fair.

4. Implement with Idempotency and Retries

Make operations idempotent and include client-side retry logic with backoff to handle transient failures and duplicate requests.

5. Monitor and Iterate

Plan for logging, metrics, and alerts to detect concurrency issues in production. Be ready to adjust the strategy based on real-world contention.

Key Points to Mention

  • Optimistic vs pessimistic concurrency control and their trade-offs
  • Versioning (e.g., ETags, version numbers) to detect conflicts
  • Idempotent operations and retry mechanisms
  • Conflict resolution strategies (last-write-wins, merge, user intervention)
  • Consistency models (strong vs eventual) and their impact on UX
  • Handling offline scenarios and synchronization when devices reconnect

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