Sigma Computing

Sigma Computing Software Engineer Interview Questions

11+ questions from real Sigma Computing Software Engineer interviews, reported by candidates.

11
Questions
3
Round Types
6
Topic Areas
2025
Year Range

Round Types

Phone 4 Onsite 4 Phone Screen 1

Top Topics

Questions

The follow-up round involves reviewing your code and adding a few follow-ups, such as how to support addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. It also discusses potential changes. For the s

Design a spreadsheet with: Unlimited rows, limited columns Columns have string names (like "A", "B", "Sales") All cells store integers (default: 0) Support these 3 operations: Set(row, column, value)

Sigma Computing, a B2B SaaS analytics startup, utilizes a practical, collaborative first-round interview rather than standard algorithmic puzzles. The challenge involves implementing a backend for a s

**Context** The interview focuses on a `Spreadsheet` class initialized with specific dimensions ($M$ rows, $N$ columns). The class provides the following pre-built methods: * `set_cell(row, col, value

**Context** This interview involved a coding challenge focused on a spreadsheet class implementation. It served as the second round of the process, thematically linked to the first round but with incr

## Problem Implement a spreadsheet-style cell table with formula evaluation and dependency resolution between cells. ## Likely LeetCode equivalent No direct LC match; topological sort / graph problem. ## Tags matrix, graph, topological-sort

## Problem Implement a JSON parser from scratch, handling nested objects, arrays, strings, numbers, booleans, and null. ## Likely LeetCode equivalent No direct LC match; recursive descent parsing problem. ## Tags recursion, strings, parsing

## Problem Given the following schema: ```sql orders(id INT, customer_id INT, status VARCHAR, created_at TIMESTAMP, total DECIMAL) order_items(order_id INT, product_id INT, quantity INT, unit_price DECIMAL) products(id INT, name VARCHAR, category VARCHAR) customers(id INT, name VARCHAR, country VARCHAR) ``` Write SQL for: **Q1:** Monthly revenue for the past 12 months, broken down by product category. **Q2:** Customers who placed orders in every month of the last 6 months (consistently active). **Q3:** For each customer, their most recent order total and whether it is higher or lower than their average order total. **Example output for Q3:** ``` customer_id | latest_order | avg_order | vs_avg ------------+--------------+-----------+-------- 1001 | 250.00 | 180.00 | above 1002 | 45.00 | 90.00 | below ``` ## Follow-ups 1. How would you optimize Q2 for a table with 50M order rows? 2. Rewrite Q1 using a CTE vs a subquery - which is more readable and why? 3. How would you handle timezone differences in `created_at` for monthly bucketing? 4. Add a column for 30-day rolling revenue to Q1.

## Problem Design a role-based access control (RBAC) system. Users are assigned roles; roles have permissions; permissions are `(resource, action)` pairs. Implement: - `add_role(role_name)` - `grant_permission(role_name, resource, action)` - `assign_role(user_id, role_name)` - `can(user_id, resource, action) -> bool` - `revoke_role(user_id, role_name)` Roles can inherit from other roles. ```python class PermissionSystem: def add_role(self, role: str, inherits: str = None): ... def grant_permission(self, role: str, resource: str, action: str): ... def assign_role(self, user_id: str, role: str): ... def can(self, user_id: str, resource: str, action: str) -> bool: ... def revoke_role(self, user_id: str, role: str): ... ``` **Example:** ``` sys.add_role("viewer") sys.add_role("editor", inherits="viewer") sys.grant_permission("viewer", "doc", "read") sys.grant_permission("editor", "doc", "write") sys.assign_role("u1", "editor") sys.can("u1", "doc", "read") -> True # inherited from viewer sys.can("u1", "doc", "delete") -> False ``` ## Follow-ups 1. How do you handle circular inheritance (role A inherits B inherits A)? 2. How would you scale `can()` checks to millions of requests per second? 3. Add resource wildcards (e.g., permission on `"doc:*"` covers all doc resources). 4. How would you audit who has access to a given resource?

## Problem Build or simulate a pivot table that aggregates and transforms tabular data similar to spreadsheet pivot functionality. ## Likely LeetCode equivalent No direct LC equivalent. ## Tags design, hash_table, arrays

## Problem You are given a list of tokens representing a mathematical expression in prefix notation. Build the expression tree and evaluate it. Tokens are either operators (`+`, `-`, `*`, `/`) or integer literals. ```python def evaluate_token_tree(tokens: List[str]) -> float: ... ``` **Example:** ``` Input: ["*", "+", "3", "4", "2"] Expression: (* (+ 3 4) 2) = (3+4)*2 = 14 Output: 14 Input: ["+", "*", "2", "3", "/", "8", "4"] Expression: (+ (* 2 3) (/ 8 4)) = 6 + 2 = 8 Output: 8 ``` ## Approach Use a recursive descent parser with a pointer into the token list. Each call to `parse()` consumes one operator and recursively parses its two operands. ```python def parse(tokens, idx): token = tokens[idx] if token not in "+-*/": return float(token), idx + 1 left, idx = parse(tokens, idx + 1) right, idx = parse(tokens, idx) return apply(token, left, right), idx ``` ## Follow-ups 1. Extend to handle unary operators (e.g., negation). 2. How would you convert an infix expression to prefix notation first? 3. Add support for variables (e.g., `x`, `y`) with a substitution map. 4. How does this change if tokens are streamed one at a time?

What Sigma Computing Looks for in Software Engineer Interviews

Sigma Computing Software Engineer interviews are calibrated against the level and scope expected of the role. Across 11+ verified candidate reports on LeakCode, the consistent signals interviewers look for: clear problem decomposition before coding, explicit complexity reasoning, structured handling of edge cases, and the ability to articulate trade-offs between two reasonable approaches.

The discriminator between candidates who advance and candidates who do not is rarely the final correctness of the solution. It is the path to the solution: did you ask clarifying questions, did you state your approach before coding, did you handle edge cases without prompting, and did you communicate your reasoning throughout. Reports tagged "no hire" frequently cite a working solution with poor communication; reports tagged "strong hire" cite clear thinking even when the final solution was incomplete.

How To Use This Question Set

Real interview reports are a calibration tool, not a memorization target. Companies update their question pools every 2-4 months; memorizing exact problems risks misleading you when the interviewer uses a variant. The high-leverage use: identify the patterns that appear repeatedly in Sigma Computing Software Engineer reports, practice those patterns on similar (not identical) problems, and use the reports to understand the interviewer's typical follow-up depth.

Filter the questions below by round type, difficulty, and recency. Focus first on reports from the past 6-12 months; older reports may reference questions that have since rotated out of Sigma Computing's pool. Reports tagged with quantified difficulty (e.g., "medium-hard") are higher-signal than reports without difficulty tags.

Round-by-Round Expectations

Sigma Computing Software Engineer loops typically span 4-6 rounds across phone screens and on-site or virtual on-site interviews. The structure varies by company: some run 1 recruiter screen + 1 technical phone + 3-4 on-site rounds; others run 1 recruiter screen + 1 OA + 4-5 on-site rounds. The recruiter screen is logistics and culture-light; the technical phone screen is medium-difficulty coding; the on-site loop covers coding, system design (at L4+ levels), and behavioral rounds.

Each round is designed to surface a specific signal. Coding rounds: correctness, code quality, complexity reasoning, communication. System design rounds: requirements clarification, design judgment, operational thinking. Behavioral rounds: ownership scope, leadership, ambiguity tolerance, conflict navigation. Strong candidates explicitly hit each signal dimension out loud during the round; weak candidates focus only on solving the prompt.

Common Interview Mistakes At This Combination

Reports tagged "no hire" at Sigma Computing Software Engineer commonly cite: jumping into code without clarifying requirements, coding silently for 10+ minutes without verbalizing approach, missing edge cases (empty input, single element, very large input, overflow), and producing a working solution that the candidate cannot explain or refactor when probed. Strong candidates avoid these patterns by following a consistent template: clarify, verbalize approach, code with narration, test with examples.

Behavioral and design rounds have their own failure modes. Behavioral: stories that use "we" instead of "I" diluting individual signal, stories with no quantified outcome, defensiveness when probed about failure. Design: not asking clarifying questions, not stating requirements out loud, designing for a single server when the prompt clearly implies scale, ignoring operational concerns (deployment, monitoring, rollback). These show up in roughly half of Sigma Computing Software Engineer interview retrospectives on LeakCode.

See All 11 Sigma Computing Software Engineer Questions

Full question text, answer context, and frequency data for subscribers.

Get Access