← Pinterest Interview Insights
The sorting part I got fine, but I stumbled on the date comparison piece.
First, clarify the date string format and whether lexicographic sorting is valid (e.g., ISO 8601). Then, outline a sorting step (e.g., using a stable sort) and a binary search that handles duplicates by finding the first or last occurrence, and returns a sentinel (like -1) if the target is absent. Discuss trade-offs such as time complexity and the importance of consistent date formatting.
Pro tip: Mention that if the date strings are not in a sortable format (e.g., 'MM/DD/YYYY'), you must parse them into a comparable form (like Unix timestamps) before sorting; otherwise, lexicographic order will be incorrect. Also, note that binary search on duplicates can be adapted to return any matching index or a range, depending on requirements.
Ask or state the format of the date strings (e.g., ISO 8601, RFC 3339) and confirm if lexicographic comparison yields chronological order. If not, plan to parse dates into a comparable type.
Sort the list by date using an appropriate comparison function. If dates are parsed, sort by the parsed value; otherwise, use string comparison. Ensure the sort is stable if preserving original order for duplicates matters.
Perform binary search on the sorted list. For duplicates, decide whether to return the first, last, or any matching index. Use a modified binary search that continues searching left or right after finding a match.
If the target date is not present, return a sentinel value (e.g., -1) or the insertion point. Clearly state the return value and its meaning.
State that sorting takes O(n log n) and binary search takes O(log n). Discuss space complexity and whether in-place sorting is possible. Mention that if multiple queries are expected, sorting once and reusing is efficient.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.