← Pinterest Interview Insights
The None handling was the first thing I fumbled.
First, clarify the data schema and confirm that the category lookup maps each pin to a category. Then, in a single pass over the records, filter for video pins with non-null time values, accumulate sum and count per category using a hash map, and finally compute averages to find the maximum with alphabetical tie-breaking. This achieves O(n) time and O(k) space where k is the number of categories.
Pro tip: Mention that you would validate the category lookup covers all pins and handle missing categories gracefully, as data quality issues are common in production analytics. Also, emphasize that you would use a streaming approach to handle large datasets efficiently.
Ask about the structure of engagement records (fields like pin_id, time_spent, is_video) and the category lookup map. Confirm that 'video pins' are identified by a flag or content type, and that null time values should be skipped.
Plan a single pass over the records: for each video pin with non-null time, look up its category and update running sum and count in a hash map. This avoids sorting or multiple passes.
Consider cases where no video pins exist, all times are null, or multiple categories have the same average. For ties, compare category names alphabetically and choose the lexicographically smaller one.
After processing, iterate through the hash map to compute averages, track the maximum, and apply tie-breaking. Return the category name and the average rounded to the desired precision (e.g., two decimal places).
Confirm O(n) time and O(k) space. Walk through a small example to verify correctness, including tie-breaking and null exclusion.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.
Simpler than part A but I overcomplicated it at first by trying to deduplicate globally instead of per user.
Iterate through each user's list of pin IDs, using a set to count unique pins per user, then accumulate the total unique counts. Finally, divide by the number of users and round to 2 decimal places. This achieves O(total items) time and O(number of users) extra space.
Pro tip: Clarify edge cases upfront: empty lists count as zero, and if there are no users, return 0.0. Also, mention that using a set per user is efficient because it avoids storing all unique pins globally, keeping space proportional to the number of users.
Restate the problem: compute average unique pins per user, with empty lists as zero. Confirm time and space complexity goals.
For each user, convert their list to a set to get unique pins, then sum the sizes. Divide by total users and round to 2 decimals.
Consider empty input (no users) and users with empty lists. Ensure division by zero is handled.
Explain that iterating through all items takes O(N) time, and storing sets per user takes O(U) space, where U is number of users.
Write clean code, test with sample data including duplicates and empty lists, and verify rounding.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.