← Microsoft Interview Insights
The set operation was trivial since timestamps are guaranteed to be strictly increasing per key, so you just append.
Clarify the requirements and constraints (e.g., number of operations, timestamp range, concurrency) before designing. Propose a data structure where each key maps to a list of (timestamp, value) pairs sorted by timestamp, and use binary search to find the largest timestamp ≤ query timestamp. Discuss trade-offs between different implementations (e.g., hash map + sorted list vs. balanced BST) and analyze time/space complexity.
Pro tip: Mention that timestamps are monotonically increasing per key, so appending to the list maintains sorted order, and binary search gives O(log n) retrieval. Also, consider edge cases like querying before the first timestamp and handling duplicate timestamps.
Ask about expected number of operations, timestamp range, concurrency needs, and whether timestamps are unique per key. This shows you think about real-world usage and helps tailor the solution.
Propose a hash map from key to a list of (timestamp, value) pairs, where the list is kept sorted by timestamp. Alternatively, consider a balanced BST or skip list for more dynamic scenarios.
For set(key, value, timestamp), append the new (timestamp, value) to the list for that key. Since timestamps are monotonically increasing, the list remains sorted. If timestamps can be out of order, insert in sorted position.
For get(key, timestamp), retrieve the list for the key and use binary search to find the largest timestamp ≤ the query timestamp. Return the corresponding value, or empty string if none exists.
Discuss time complexity: O(1) average for set (append), O(log n) for get (binary search). Space: O(n) total entries. Compare with alternatives like using a tree map per key (O(log n) for both) and mention concurrency considerations.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.