Dayward AI

Interview Bank

328 questions total; 2 shown with current filters.

Tag
235 more tags
#idempotency5#streaming5#structured-output5#chunking4#deployment4#distributed-systems4#rag4#system-prompt4#tool-calling4#client3#embeddings3#failure-modes3#ingestion3#mcp3#message-bus3#operations3#progressive-disclosure3#ranking3#timeline3#agent-loop2#agentic-rag2#agents-sdk2#caching2#citations2#code-review2#communication2#consistency2#context2#context-engineering2#context-rot2#cost-control2#data-modeling2#grounding2#hybrid-search2#langgraph2#latency2#model-migration2#model-routing2#multi-agent2#ordering2#pipeline-design2#prompt-basics2#prompt-engineering2#protocol2#rate-limiting2#react2#redis-streams2#responses-api2#retrieval2#retrieval-quality2#routing2#runtime2#sse2#state-management2#statelessness2#subagents2#system-design2#tool-design2#tooling2#tracing2#trade-offs2#transport2#vector-database2#versioning2#workflow2#abstention1#access-control1#agent-design1#agent-quality1#altitude1#approvals1#async1#async-task1#atomicity1#attention-budget1#auth1#av-sync1#behavioral1#bm251#candidate-selection1#capacity-planning1#chain-of-thought1#checkpointing1#ci1#citation-verification1#claude-code1#cli-design1#cloud1#compaction1#compression1#content-hash1#context-compression1#context-window1#contextual-retrieval1#cost-optimization1#cross-model1#dag1#data-quality1#database1#decision-making1#decomposition1#degradation1#deliberate-practice1#design1#diagnostics1#dimensions1#distribution1#docker1#documentation1#engineering-judgement1#engineering-tradeoffs1#eval1#event-driven1#fallback1#fan-out1#ffmpeg1#forking1#four-elements1#framework-design1#framework-selection1#golden-set1#hallucination1#handoffs1#headless1#hnsw1#hybrid1#hyde1#image-generation1#incremental-recompute1#incremental-sync1#index-maintenance1#index-routing1#indexing1#information-retrieval1#instruction-hierarchy1#intent-routing1#interrupt-merge1#interview-prep1#invalidation1#isolation1#ivfflat1#just-in-time1#knowledge-organization1#lease1#llm-as-judge1#llm-output-quality1#long-context1#loop-guard1#media-pipeline1#metadata1#metrics1#mobile1#model-selection1#multi-tenancy1#multimodal1#nodejs1#orchestration1#pagination1#parent-child1#pdf-parsing1#performance1#permissions1#persistence1#pgvector1#pipeline-reliability1#portfolio1#prioritization1#production-readiness1#prompt-assembly1#prompt-caching1#prompt-injection1#prompt-limits1#prompt-techniques1#prompt-template1#prompt-versioning1#provider-abstraction1#quality-check1#quantization1#query-transformation1#quiet-hours1#rank-fusion1#reasoning1#recall1#redis1#reflection1#refusal1#reporting1#reproducibility1#rerank1#retrieval-failure1#retrieval-metrics1#retry1#retry-semantics1#retry-strategy1#review1#rollback1#rrf1#sandbox1#sandboxing1#scalability1#scheduling1#schema-design1#scoping1#scripts1#secrets-management1#self-assessment1#self-presentation1#self-reflection1#service-architecture1#session-management1#sessions1#sharding1#skill-authoring1#skill-description1#skills1#spec1#state-machine1#stateless1#stopping-criteria1#subtitles1#task-graph1#team-governance1#testing1#tool-budget1#tool-execution1#tool-naming1#tools1#tts1#tuning1#ux1#validation1#vector-index1#verification1#workflow-engine1#xml-tags1

From Frontend Engineer to Agent Engineer in 30 Days

D29 Shoring Up Weak Points + a Coding Warm-Up: Rate Limiter, LRU, Concurrency Control, Streaming JSON Parsing

  • How would you build a scheduler that caps in-flight async tasks, and why is Promise.all or asyncio.gather not enough?怎么实现一个限制并发数的调度器?为什么不能直接用 Promise.all 或者 asyncio.gather?
    Common in ChinaCommon overseasIntermediate#concurrency#async

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. The hinge is the second half. They are checking whether you separate 'await a batch' from 'cap how many run at once' — similar API names, unrelated semantics.
    2. Name the wrong answer first: mapping 500 items to promises and awaiting them together runs at concurrency 500. Creating the promise already fired the request; awaiting only collects results. gather and CompletableFuture.allOf are the same trap in other accents.
    3. Then give the two correct shapes: a fixed set of workers pulling from a shared cursor (the JS idiom, where a worker is the slot), or a semaphore gating task start (asyncio.Semaphore, java.util.concurrent.Semaphore). Swift needs a manual window over a TaskGroup — fill limit slots, then add one task per result received.
    4. The real failure mode is slot leakage: release must happen in a finally, or the error must be collapsed into a result value inside the task. Code that misses this looks perfect on the happy path and only degrades once the downstream starts failing, which makes it one of the hardest bugs to trace.
    5. Tie it to agents: batch embedding, parallel tool calls, fan-out subtasks. The benefit is not only sparing the downstream — peak memory now scales with the concurrency limit instead of the task count.
    6. Expect the follow-up: what if tasks retry? Retries must happen inside the slot, otherwise a retry storm bypasses the limiter entirely. One level deeper: add jitter so failed tasks do not all come back at the same instant.

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 题眼在后半句。面试官在确认你分不分得清「等待一批任务」和「限制同时运行的任务数」——这两件事在 API 名字上很像,在语义上毫无关系。
    2. 先说破错误答案为什么错:把 500 个任务全部映射成 Promise 再一起 await,这段代码的并发度是 500。Promise 一被创建,它内部的请求就已经发出去了,await 只是在等结果;gather 和 CompletableFuture.allOf 是同一个坑的另外两种口音。
    3. 再给正确形状的两条路:固定数量的工人从同一个游标取任务(JS 的惯用法,槽位就是工人本身),或者用信号量挡在任务启动之前(Python 的 asyncio.Semaphore、Java 的 Semaphore)。Swift 要用 TaskGroup 自己开滑动窗口,先塞满 limit 个、每收一个结果补一个。
    4. 本题真正的失分点是槽位泄漏:acquire 之后必须在 finally 里 release,或者把错误在任务内部收敛成结果值。忘了这一步的代码在 happy path 上完全正常,只有下游开始报错时才会一点点变慢直到彻底卡死——这是最难查的那类 bug,因为症状出现在故障之后而不是之中。
    5. 落到 Agent 场景说收益:批量 embedding、并行工具调用、多路子任务都靠它。收益不只是「不打爆下游」,还有同时驻留的内存与并发度同阶而不是与任务数同阶。
    6. 可以预期的追问:如果任务本身还要重试呢?答案是重试要在槽位内部完成(占着槽位退避重试),否则重试风暴会绕过限流;再追一层就是给重试加抖动,避免所有失败任务在同一时刻一起回来。

    Key points

    • Promise.all and asyncio.gather only wait; the work started when each promise was created, so concurrency equals the task count
    • Two correct shapes: a fixed worker set pulling from a shared cursor, or a semaphore gating task start
    • The slot must be returned on every exit path — finally in Java, async with in Python, error-to-value inside a Swift task, try/catch inside the JS loop
    • A leaked slot shows up as gradual slowdown to a full stall once the downstream starts erroring, and is invisible on the happy path
    • The payoff is peak memory scaling with the concurrency limit rather than the task count; retries must stay inside the slot and carry jitter

    答题要点

    • Promise.all 与 asyncio.gather 只负责等待,任务在被创建的那一刻就已经启动了,并发度等于任务总数
    • 两种正确形状:固定数量的工人从共享游标取任务,或者用信号量挡在任务启动之前
    • 槽位必须在任何退出路径上归还:Java 写在 finally 里,Python 用 async with,Swift 把错误收敛成结果值,JS 在循环里 try 与 catch
    • 槽位泄漏的症状是「下游一开始报错就越来越慢直到卡死」,happy path 完全看不出来
    • 收益是同时驻留的内存与并发度同阶,而不是与任务总数同阶;重试要占着槽位做,并加抖动

Build an AI Short-Drama Production Pipeline With Agents in 14 Days

D9 Concurrency and Quotas: Starting Multiple Episodes at Once Without Blowing Through Any Provider's Limits

  • Many jobs share one vendor's quota. How would you design the rate limiting?多个任务共用一家厂商的额度,你会怎么设计限流?
    Common in ChinaCommon overseasIntermediate#rate-limiting#concurrency#scheduling

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. The hinge is the word shared. Naming a token bucket only answers half of it; the interviewer wants your bucketing dimension and what else sits around the bucket.
    2. Dimension first: bucket per vendor and per API family, never one global bucket. Image and speech quotas at the same vendor are separate pools, and merging them lets the tight one throttle the loose one.
    3. Then the parts: one bucket is not enough. A token bucket caps rate (calls per minute, a number the vendor sets); a semaphore caps concurrency (how many are in flight, a number you set to protect memory and spend). Rate alone lets a fast endpoint fire hundreds per minute; concurrency alone lets twenty downloads pile up.
    4. The engineering detail that decides everything: admission must be non-blocking. If a job is dispatched first and then waits for a token inside the worker, low-priority work pins every worker slot and priority silently stops working. Ask the gate before dispatch, and skip to the next candidate when it says no.
    5. Finally the numbers: concurrency should not track CPU cores, since this pipeline is almost all network wait. Derive it from vendor quota and from how much work one failure forces you to redo.
    6. Expected follow-up: where does bucket state live. In-memory is fine for one process; across processes it belongs in Redis behind an atomic token-take script, or each process limits itself and the sum still blows the quota.

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 这题的题眼是「共用」两个字。只回答一个令牌桶算答了一半,面试官想听的是你按什么维度分桶、以及桶之外还需要什么。
    2. 先给维度:限流要按「厂商 + 接口类别」分桶,不能全局一个桶。同一家的图像和语音是两个独立的配额池,混在一起会让紧的那个把松的那个也拖住。
    3. 再给部件:一个桶不够,要两个。令牌桶管速率(一分钟发几次,数字是厂商定的),信号量管并发(同一时刻挂着几个,数字是你自己定的用来保护内存和钱包)。只有速率控制的话,快速返回的接口一分钟能发几百次;只有并发控制的话,二十个请求同时在飞会把内存挂满。
    4. 然后是关键的工程细节:拿许可的动作必须是非阻塞的。如果任务先被派出去、再在执行流里等令牌,工作槽会被一批低优先任务占死,优先级就静默失效了。正确结构是调度器派活之前先问闸门要许可,拿不到就跳过它去看下一个候选。
    5. 最后落到取值:并发上限不该按 CPU 核数定,这条线几乎没有本地计算,全在等网络;它该按「一次失败要重跑多少东西」和厂商配额来定。
    6. 可预期的追问是「桶的状态放哪」。单进程放内存就够;多进程要放 Redis,用一个原子脚本取令牌,否则每个进程各限各的,加起来照样超。

    Key points

    • Bucket per vendor and per API family; image and speech at one vendor get separate gates.
    • Each gate has two parts: a token bucket for rate (the vendor's RPM) and a semaphore for in-flight concurrency (your own number).
    • Admission is non-blocking: if the gate says no, the job stays queued instead of holding a worker slot.
    • Take the concurrency slot before the token, or a rejected admission silently burns quota.
    • Across processes, move bucket state to Redis and take tokens atomically.

    答题要点

    • 按「厂商 + 接口类别」分桶,一家的图像和语音各一道闸门。
    • 每道闸门两个部件:令牌桶控速率(厂商给的 RPM),信号量控并发(自己定的在飞上限)。
    • 准入必须非阻塞,拿不到许可就把任务留在队列里,绝不占着工作槽干等。
    • 先抢并发票再取令牌,顺序反了会白白扣掉配额。
    • 多进程部署时桶的状态要外置到 Redis,用原子操作取令牌。