Fivetran SDE-2 interview review

Position: SDE-2 Applied via: Direct application on Fivetran careers page for SDE role Language: Java only Status: Rejected after Round 1

Online Assessment (HackerRank)

The online assessment consisted of a single coding question on HackerRank, with Java as the only allowed language. The problem was based on managing employee scores. I approached it using a Heap-based solution, and only 2–3 test cases failed. Despite the partial failure, I was contacted by a recruiter shortly afterward. He informed me that the interview process would consist of two rounds, and I would proceed to the second round only if I cleared the first.

Round 1 (Technical Interview – 1 Hour)

Part 1: Longest Increasing Subsequence

The first round of the technical interview lasted an hour and was divided into two parts, both focused on data structures and algorithms. In the first part, I was asked to solve the Longest Increasing Subsequence (LIS) problem. I began by explaining the approach conceptually, starting with a decision tree and highlighting overlapping subproblems, which naturally led to a dynamic programming solution with a time complexity of O(n²). We did a dry run together on a sample input to ensure the logic was sound, and then I coded the solution. It passed all test cases. I was expecting a follow-up question to optimize the solution to O(n log n) using binary search and patience sorting, but that wasn’t asked.

Part 2: Aladdin and the Magic Carpet

In the second part, I was given a problem called Aladdin and the Magic Carpet, which was conceptually similar to Leetcode 134: Gas Station. At first, I had trouble understanding the problem, but the interviewer clarified it for me. I then implemented a greedy approach. My initial solution failed some test cases due to a bug in how I calculated the minimum fuel required. After identifying and fixing the issue, the updated solution passed all test cases successfully.

Outcome

I felt the interview round went well overall — both problems were solved with correct logic and fully working code after debugging. The interviewer was cooperative, and I was confident about my performance by the end of the session. Naturally, I was expecting to hear back for the next round, but after a few days of silence, I decided to follow up with the recruiter.

To my disappointment, the recruiter replied that the feedback was not positive :) and I wouldn’t be moving forward in the process. There was no detailed explanation provided.