逐日AI

面试题库

共 328 题,当前筛选 1 题。

标签
还有 362 个标签
#api-design9#coding-agent9#distributed-systems8#multi-agent8#rag8#chunking7#debugging7#pipeline-design7#structured-output7#agent-loop6#mcp6#operations6#prompt-injection6#sse6#tool-calling6#tool-design6#context5#context-engineering5#deployment5#embeddings5#hybrid-search5#message-bus5#scheduling5#system-prompt5#agentic-rag4#behavioral4#client4#concurrency4#consistency4#framework-design4#ingestion4#prompt-engineering4#rate-limiting4#retrieval4#routing4#trade-offs4#abstention3#agents-sdk3#caching3#communication3#context-window3#cost-control3#data-quality3#failure-modes3#image-generation3#interview-prep3#langgraph3#latency3#llm-as-judge3#llm-basics3#long-context3#model-migration3#model-routing3#orchestration3#ordering3#progressive-disclosure3#prompt-basics3#prompt-caching3#protocol3#provider-abstraction3#ranking3#recall3#redis-streams3#responses-api3#resume3#retry3#runtime3#scalability3#skills3#state-management3#statelessness3#subagents3#timeline3#versioning3#workflow-engine3#access-control2#agent-design2#async-task2#auth2#checkpointing2#citation-verification2#citations2#claude-md2#code-review2#compaction2#context-rot2#contextual-retrieval2#cost-tradeoff2#data-modeling2#database2#distribution2#fallback2#ffmpeg2#golden-set2#grounding2#interview-process2#long-term-memory2#media-pipeline2#memory2#multi-hop2#multi-tenancy2#oauth2#prioritization2#project-storytelling2#prompt-techniques2#query-rewriting2#react2#refusal2#reproducibility2#rerank2#retrieval-quality2#retrospective2#scripts2#sharding2#state-machine2#tool-permissions2#tooling2#tools2#tracing2#transport2#tts2#ux2#vector-database2#verification2#workflow2#agent-basics1#agent-quality1#agent-sdk1#agents-md1#altitude1#analytics1#approvals1#architecture-review1#async1#atomicity1#attention-budget1#av-sync1#backoff1#bi-encoder1#bm251#budget-control1#build-vs-buy1#cancellation1#candidate-selection1#capacity-planning1#career1#chain-of-thought1#ci1#circuit-breaker1#claude-code1#cli-design1#client-integration1#cloud1#compliance1#compression1#configuration1#confused-deputy1#consistent-hashing1#content-hash1#content-safety1#context-assembly1#context-compression1#context-management1#copyright1#coreference1#correctness1#cost-accounting1#cost-analysis1#cost-optimization1#cross-encoder1#cross-model1#customer-support1#dag1#decision-making1#decomposition1#degradation1#deliberate-practice1#design1#diagnostics1#dimensions1#docker1#documentation1#embedding-migration1#encoding1#engineering-judgement1#engineering-tradeoffs1#error-propagation1#escalation1#eval1#event-driven1#evidence1#failure-analysis1#fairness1#faithfulness1#fan-out1#feedback-loop1#fencing-token1#few-shot1#filter-pushdown1#filtering1#fine-tuning1#forking1#four-elements1#framework-selection1#frontend1#global-market1#graph-rag1#guardrails1#hallucination1#handoff1#handoffs1#headless1#hnsw1#hooks1#human-in-the-loop1#hybrid1#hyde1#incremental-recompute1#incremental-sync1#index-maintenance1#index-routing1#indexing1#information-retrieval1#instruction-hierarchy1#integration1#intent-routing1#interrupt-merge1#invalidation1#isolation1#iterative-scan1#ivfflat1#json-parsing1#json-schema1#jwt1#knowledge-organization1#labeling1#latency-budget1#lease1#least-privilege1#llm-output-quality1#long-session1#loop-guard1#maintenance1#mcp-basics1#mental-model1#messages-api1#metadata1#methodology1#metrics1#migration1#mobile1#model-selection1#moderation1#modularity1#multi-turn1#multimodal1#nodejs1#normalisation1#notifications1#ocr1#offline-testing1#openai1#overlap1#pagination1#parent-child1#pdf-parsing1#performance1#permissions1#persistence1#pgvector1#pipeline-reliability1#portfolio1#primitives1#priority-queue1#proactive-messaging1#product-engineering1#production-readiness1#prompt1#prompt-assembly1#prompt-bloat1#prompt-design1#prompt-limits1#prompt-surface1#prompt-template1#prompt-versioning1#prompting1#protocol-versions1#quality1#quality-check1#quantization1#query-transformation1#quiet-hours1#rag-basics1#rank-fusion1#reasoning1#reconnect1#redis1#reflection1#replay1#reporting1#retrieval-failure1#retrieval-metrics1#retry-semantics1#retry-strategy1#review1#risk-assessment1#rollback1#rollout1#rrf1#safety1#sampling1#sandbox1#sandboxing1#scaling1#schema-design1#schema-validation1#scoping1#secrets-management1#self-assessment1#self-introduction1#self-presentation1#self-reflection1#server-design1#service-architecture1#session-management1#sessions1#similarity1#skill-authoring1#skill-description1#skill-design1#spec1#split-brain1#stakeholder-communication1#star1#state-persistence1#stateless1#stdio-transport1#stopping-criteria1#storytelling1#subagent1#subscriptions1#subtitles1#task-graph1#team-governance1#test-set1#test-strategy1#testing1#thresholds1#timezone1#token-accounting1#token-budget1#tool-budget1#tool-execution1#tool-naming1#tool-schema1#trust-boundary1#tuning1#validation1#vector-index1#workflow-design1#xml-tags1#zero-downtime1

5 天上下文工程

D3 工具结果与检索的上下文管理:按需加载、摘要与裁剪、结构化返回

  • 按需加载和预先检索怎么选?混合策略应该怎么搭?How do you choose between just-in-time loading and pre-inference retrieval, and how would you combine them?
    国内高频海外高频进阶#retrieval#just-in-time#hybrid

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 这题在考场景判断。答「按需加载更先进」的会被当成跟风,因为预先检索在很多场景里就是更好的选择,说不出它好在哪说明没做过。
    2. 怎么拆:用三个问题分开。需要的资料范围事先能不能确定(能就预先检索)、资料变化快不快(变得快索引一建就旧,偏按需加载)、一次能不能取完(要顺着线索翻好几层就只能按需)。
    3. 把两者的本质差别点出来:预先检索把「取什么」的决定权交给检索算法,在推理之前一次性做完;按需加载把这个决定权交给模型自己,在推理过程中分多次做。前者延迟低、可预测,后者能应付事先不知道要什么的情况。
    4. 结论是混合:把最稳定最常用的一小部分预先放进去(比如项目的常驻说明文件),其余靠运行时的搜索原语现取。这样既有起步速度,又不会被过期索引拖住。这也是编码类 Agent 的主流做法。
    5. 可预期的追问:按需加载的成本在哪?多了几轮往返,延迟更高,而且每一次取回的正文都会留在上下文里继续占预算——所以它必须和裁剪配套,取回来的东西该扔的时候要扔。

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. This tests situational judgment. Calling just-in-time more advanced reads as trend-following, because pre-inference retrieval is genuinely better in many cases.
    2. Separate with three questions: can the needed material be scoped in advance (yes favors pre-retrieval), how fast does the material change (fast means indexes go stale, favoring just-in-time), and can it be fetched in one shot (multi-hop exploration forces just-in-time).
    3. Name the underlying difference: pre-retrieval hands the what-to-fetch decision to a retrieval algorithm and settles it before inference; just-in-time hands it to the model and spreads it across the run. The first is faster and more predictable, the second handles not knowing in advance.
    4. Conclusion is hybrid: preload the small, stable, always-relevant slice such as a project's standing instruction file, and use runtime search primitives for the rest. That gives a fast start without stale indexing, which is what coding agents converge on.
    5. Expect the follow-up on cost: just-in-time adds round trips and latency, and every fetched body stays in context consuming budget, so it must be paired with trimming.

    答题要点

    • 三个判断:范围能不能事先确定、资料变化快不快、一次能不能取完。
    • 预先检索把取什么的决定交给检索算法并在推理前做完;按需加载把它交给模型并分多次做。
    • 多数真实项目是混合:稳定常用的一小部分预加载,其余靠运行时搜索原语现取,避开索引过期。
    • 按需加载的代价是多轮往返与延迟,且取回的正文会继续占预算,必须和裁剪配套。

    Key points

    • Three questions: can scope be fixed in advance, how fast does the data change, and can it be fetched in one shot.
    • Pre-retrieval delegates the fetch decision to an algorithm before inference; just-in-time delegates it to the model during the run.
    • Most real systems are hybrid: preload the stable core, use runtime search for the rest, avoiding stale indexes.
    • Just-in-time costs round trips and latency, and fetched bodies keep consuming budget, so pair it with trimming.