Anagram Group Tracker with Add, Remove, and Largest-Group Queries: Read vs Write Trade-offs
CoupangSoftware Engineer · OnsiteLast updated
Design an in-memory data structure that supports adding words, removing words, and querying the largest anagram group. Tests canonical key generation, dynamic maximum maintenance, and read-versus-write algorithmic trade-offs.
Problem Statement
Design an in-memory data structure, AnagramGroupTracker, that stores a collection of words and dynamically tracks groups of anagrams. Two words are anagrams if they contain the exact same characters with the same frequencies (e.g., "eat", "tea", and "ate").
The structure must support three operations using only standard library data structures:
add_word(word: str) -> None: Insertswordinto the collection. Duplicate identical words are allowed, and each instance counts toward its anagram group size.remove_word(word: str) -> bool: Removes a single occurrence ofwordfrom the collection if it exists. ReturnsTrueif the word was found and removed, orFalseif it was not present.get_largest_group() -> list[str]: Returns a list of all words currently belonging to the largest anagram group. If multiple anagram groups tie for the largest size, returning any one of them is acceptable. If the collection is empty, return an empty list[].
Be prepared to discuss read-optimized vs. write-optimized implementations and how your design choices adapt to read-heavy versus write-heavy workloads.
Interface
class AnagramGroupTracker:
def __init__(self):
pass
def add_word(self, word: str) -> None:
pass
def remove_word(self, word: str) -> bool:
pass
def get_largest_group(self) -> list[str]:
pass
Example
tracker = AnagramGroupTracker()
tracker.add_word("cat")
tracker.add_word("act")
tracker.add_word("dog")
tracker.get_largest_group() # Returns ["cat", "act"] (or any permutation)
tracker.add_word("god")
tracker.add_word("good")
tracker.add_word("dog")
# Anagram groups:
# "act": ["cat", "act"] (size 2)
# "dgo": ["dog", "god", "dog"] (size 3)
# "dgoo": ["good"] (size 1)
tracker.get_largest_group() # Returns ["dog", "god", "dog"]
tracker.remove_word("dog")
tracker.remove_word("dog")
# Now "dgo" group has only ["god"] (size 1)
tracker.get_largest_group() # Returns ["cat", "act"]
tracker.remove_word("bird") # Returns False
Constraints
- All words consist of lowercase English letters (
'a'-'z'). 1 <= len(word) <= 100- Total number of operations (
add_word,remove_word,get_largest_group) <=100,000. - Order of words in the returned group does not matter.
Edge Cases
- Calling
get_largest_group()on an empty tracker returns[]. - Adding and removing identical strings multiple times.
- Removing a word that reduces the largest group size, requiring the tracker to fall back to the next largest group.
Hints
Hint 1
To identify anagrams in O(L) or O(L log L) time, represent each word by a canonical key, such as sorted characters or a 26-element character count tuple.
Hint 2
For a write-optimized approach, simply maintain a hash map of canonical key to word occurrences and iterate through all groups on `get_largest_group()`.
Hint 3
For a read-optimized approach, maintain group sizes using frequency buckets (similar to an LFU cache) or a max-heap with lazy deletion so that `get_largest_group()` runs in O(1) or O(log K) time.
Follow-up questions
- How would you adapt the canonical key generation if words can contain arbitrary Unicode characters instead of lowercase ASCII?
- If write operations heavily outnumber read queries (99% writes, 1% reads), what is the optimal time complexity for each method?
- How would you ensure thread safety if multiple reader threads call `get_largest_group()` while writer threads concurrently call `add_word()` and `remove_word()`?
Solution walkthrough is for members
Get the full walkthrough with reference code and complexity analysis, plus Kitty Coach at 300 messages a day. Hints, the code runner and community answers stay free.