Background
In Google's technical interviews, writing correct code is just the entry ticket. What interviewers really want to see is how you define problems, model them, and design strategies when facing a vague requirement (like "fairly truncate logs"), and demonstrate system thinking and product sense beyond the code itself under questioning.
Recently, a student encountered such an open-ended "Log Truncation" problem in a Google interview. With oavoservice's "Real-time Problem Modeling + Follow-up Strategy Deduction + Architecture Mindset Injection" service, he not only completed the coding perfectly but also delivered a brilliant discourse on "fairness," impressing the interviewer.
Interview Transcript: A Deep Dialogue on "Fairness"
📌 Problem Statement (Essence)
You are given a list of log messages, each from a
source_file. Our goal is to truncate this list down to a total size ofmax_log_messages. However, the truncation must be "fair".
👨💻 Candidate's Response: Clear Logic, High Product Sense
🧷 Step 1: Understand & Model
Facing the vague word "fair", the student didn't rush to code. Guided by oavoservice, he first calibrated his understanding with the interviewer by restating the problem.
"Okay, so I have a collection of logs from various source files. I need to reduce the total number of logs, but I can't just take the first
max_log_messages. The key is fairness, which means I should avoid a situation where one noisy source file dominates the entire log quota. I need a strategy to allocate the quota among different sources."
Interviewer: "Exactly. That's a great way to frame it."
🧷 Step 2: Basic Solution (Grouping & Aggregation)
As a starting point, the student solved a simplified version: each source keeps at most X logs. He skillfully used Python's defaultdict(list) to group logs by source_file and truncated each group. This step demonstrated his solid coding fundamentals.
💥 The Real Test: Follow-up is the "Advanced Player's Game"
The interviewer immediately increased the difficulty:
"Good. Now, forget about the per-source limit X. You only have one global limit:
max_log_messages. How do you implement the truncation to be as fair as possible?"
🧠 Deriving "Round-Robin Fairness"
With oavoservice's real-time hint, an elegant and intuitive strategy emerged:
"A very fair approach would be a round-robin allocation. I can iterate through all unique source files, taking one log message from each in the first round. Then, I start a second round, taking the second message from each source, and so on, until I have collected
max_log_messagesin total. If a source runs out of messages, I simply skip it in subsequent rounds."
This strategy perfectly interprets the intuitive definition of fairness — "equal opportunity for all."
💡 Advanced Discussion: From "Round-Robin" to "Quota" Architecture
The interviewer was satisfied but wanted to dig deeper into his thinking depth.
"What if you have 6 source files, but the
max_log_messagesis only 5? Your round-robin approach wouldn't even finish the first round. How do you handle that?"
oavoservice quickly injected a backend architect's mindset. The student answered instantly:
"That's an excellent edge case. It highlights that perfect fairness isn't always possible. We need a quota-based strategy. We can calculate a
base_quota = floor(max_log_messages / num_sources). In this case, it would be 0. Then, the remainingextra_quota = max_log_messages % num_sources(which is 5) can be distributed one by one to the sources, perhaps prioritizing those with more logs available."
At this moment, the nature of the conversation changed. It was no longer an algorithm question, but a real design discussion about system resource quota strategy.
🔍 Last Few Minutes: Questions Show Your Level
At the end of the interview, under our advice, the student asked three weighty questions covering technical challenges, team culture, and collaboration models, showing his deep thinking about future work.
Summary: A Replicable Google Interview Success
- Problem Understanding: Not satisfied with the surface, actively defined and clarified vague requirements ("Fairness").
- Follow-up Thinking: Didn't memorize templates, but thought about "Round-Robin" and "Quota" at a macro strategy level.
- Technical Expression: Fluently translated abstract strategies into clear logic and code implementation.
- Interactive Communication: Demonstrated potential for equal exchange and collaborative problem-solving.
📢 Final Words
Many people get stuck at "wrote it correctly but couldn't explain it." The brilliance of this interview was that the candidate not only wrote it correctly but also clearly explained the thought process, anticipated follow-ups, and handled changes at every step.
Winning a Google offer is not just about tech; it's a comprehensive test of System + Communication.
Need Interview Assistance? Contact Us
- 📧 Email: [email protected]
- 📱 Phone: +86 17863968105
Need real interview questions? Contact WeChat Coding0201 immediately to get real questions.