Attended four rounds of interviews: an initial screening, followed by one coding round and three technical interview rounds.

The coding round was moderate.

In the technical rounds, all questions were scenario-based. Almost all questions felt one-dimensional, as there was hardly an attempt made to understand my core areas of strength. The panel seemed to come with pre-meditated questions and expected extensive answers.

The System Design question was not data engineering related and felt like it was aimed at Java developers. Additionally, some questions limited flexibility. Certain conditions and criteria were set in a way that removed flexibility in thinking and approach, making it seem as if the interviewer expected a specific answer.

At times, this made the conversation uncomfortable, as the panel refused to move on to other aspects of the design. The entire interviewing team appeared intent on challenging the candidate with their current company use case, a common interview method.

It's unfortunate that the hiring process across the industry often overlooks its inherent flaws, yet unique methods are employed to disadvantage candidates. The industry doesn't seem to recognize that data engineering is a vast and constantly evolving ecosystem. Therefore, a single perfect solution for every scenario is impossible; each use case is unique enough to warrant adequate customization in the design. It's unfair to expect candidates to have extensive experience with specific use cases that might be significant for the company.

1. HBase Cell Versioning

2. Error Handling for Dimension Table Load

3. Reconciliation Process Between Processed and Raw Data

4. System Design: Java In-Memory Data Structure to Handle DDoS Attacks