ML Interview Q Series: How would you efficiently retrieve top 10 similar jobs by title and description from millions daily?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

A powerful way to solve the “related jobs” challenge at scale is to transform each job posting into a representation that can be compared and searched against a large existing corpus in a computationally efficient manner. One of the most common approaches is to convert the text data (title, description, etc.) into vectors (embeddings), then use a specialized search index for performing fast similarity lookups. Below is an in-depth perspective on how to design this system.

Vector Embeddings for Job Postings

Using word embeddings or sentence-level embeddings (e.g., average embeddings, transformers, or specialized text encoders) transforms each job’s text into a numerical vector that captures semantic meaning. Once the text is embedded, we measure the similarity or distance between vectors to find relevant “neighbors.” A common metric for this is cosine similarity:

where u and v are the vector representations (embeddings) of job postings. A high cosine similarity indicates that the two vectors are semantically close.

Preprocessing and Feature Engineering

To create these embeddings, we might combine textual features such as job title, description, and possibly some context like company industry or skill requirements. This can be achieved by:

• Cleaning and normalizing the text (removing stop words, punctuation, etc.).

• Tokenizing the text using a subword tokenizer (if using transformer-based models).

• Converting tokens into embeddings via a pre-trained or fine-tuned language model. Examples include BERT-based models or domain-adapted models for job postings.

• Possibly concatenating or pooling multiple feature embeddings (e.g., job title embeddings + job description embeddings).

Building an Index for Similarity Search

With millions or tens of millions of existing job postings, brute force pairwise comparisons become infeasible. Therefore, we construct an index for efficient nearest neighbor retrieval. Specialized libraries such as FAISS (Facebook AI Similarity Search), Annoy (Approximate Nearest Neighbors Oh Yeah), or ScaNN can handle high-dimensional vectors and significantly reduce search latency.

Approximate Nearest Neighbor (ANN) Index

ANN techniques avoid comparing a query vector directly to all vectors in the database. Instead, they create data structures (e.g., trees, graphs, or clustering-based partitions) that limit the search space. This makes retrieving the top-k similar vectors (e.g., top 10 similar jobs) extremely fast, even when dealing with tens or hundreds of millions of embeddings.

System Architecture Overview

This approach can be broken into multiple components, each operating in a pipeline:

Ingestion Layer

As new jobs are posted, textual data flows through an ingestion pipeline:

• Data is cleaned and tokenized.

• Embeddings are generated using a model (possibly in a streaming fashion or batched).

Indexing Layer

The newly created embeddings are appended or merged into an ANN index. For large-scale systems:

• You may maintain a primary “static” index of older job embeddings that updates daily or weekly in bulk.

• You may keep a smaller “dynamic” index for the most recent job postings, which merges into the main index periodically.

Query Layer

When a user views a particular job posting:

• That job’s vector embedding is retrieved or computed on-the-fly.

• The embedding is sent to the ANN index to find the k-nearest neighbors.

• Those neighbors are returned as the “related jobs.”

Handling Scalability and Latency

Because millions of jobs could be searched daily, the system must handle both large batch insertions of new embeddings and frequent real-time queries. Some methods include:

• Partitioning the index among multiple servers or shards.

• Maintaining a cluster of ANN nodes, each responsible for a portion of the embedding space.

• Using caching strategies for popular queries (e.g., when many users view the same high-traffic job postings).

Maintaining Freshness and Relevancy

The challenge of “related jobs” is dynamic because job postings come and go. Keeping the index fresh involves periodically removing expired or filled positions and incorporating the new postings with minimal downtime. Depending on the indexing technology, we can:

• Periodically rebuild the index from scratch if the underlying data changes drastically (common if computational resources are sufficient).

• Incrementally update the index using an online insertion process.

Possible Variations and Extensions

Instead of relying solely on textual embeddings, one can include other signals:

• Company or industry embeddings (if similar companies tend to list related roles).

• Historical apply-rate patterns (jobs that attracted similar candidates might be related).

• Geographical or remote-work filters.

• Time-based weighting to prioritize more recent postings.

Potential Pitfalls

One risk is that if the chosen embedding model isn’t domain-adapted, subtle differences in job wording might not be captured. Also, approximate methods introduce some inaccuracy (you may not always get the absolute top 10 but a good approximation). Finally, resource management is critical—storing and indexing tens of millions of embeddings consumes significant memory and compute resources, so system design decisions and trade-offs (e.g., index precision vs. memory usage) must be carefully balanced.

How to Implement in Practice

Example of Embedding in Python

import torch
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModel

tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("bert-base-uncased")
model = AutoModel.from_pretrained("bert-base-uncased")

def get_embedding(text):
    inputs = tokenizer(text, return_tensors="pt", truncation=True, max_length=128)
    with torch.no_grad():
        outputs = model(**inputs)
    # For simplicity, use [CLS] token embedding or mean pooling
    cls_embedding = outputs.last_hidden_state[:, 0, :]
    return cls_embedding[0].numpy()

Once we have embeddings for all job postings, we store them in an ANN index such as FAISS:

import faiss
import numpy as np

# Suppose we have embeddings for N jobs, each of dimension D
job_embeddings = np.random.rand(1000000, 768).astype('float32')  # placeholder
index = faiss.IndexFlatL2(768)  # exact nearest neighbor index for example
index.add(job_embeddings)

# Searching for top 10 related jobs for a given job vector
query_vec = np.random.rand(1, 768).astype('float32')
distances, indices = index.search(query_vec, 10)
print(indices[0])

For large-scale deployment, one would typically use a more memory-efficient ANN index structure (such as Hierarchical Navigable Small World graph-based indexes or IVF-based indexes in FAISS) and a multi-GPU or cluster setup.

Follow-Up Questions

What if the text is very long, and we need to handle more context than a standard BERT model can process?

You might split the text into segments and either:

• Take an average of segment embeddings,

• Use a long-sequence model such as Longformer or BigBird,

• Or prioritize certain parts of the text (like the first few paragraphs for job role details and responsibilities, as they tend to contain the most relevant information).

Maintaining the trade-off between capturing enough context and computational overhead is crucial. Sometimes combining job title embeddings with a concise summary of the description can already provide a strong signal.

How do we ensure the system remains efficient while adding millions of job postings each day?

One way is to perform incremental updates to the index. You can keep a separate, smaller index for the newest jobs and merge it into the main index periodically (daily or weekly) so your main index doesn’t continuously re-build. This approach reduces the overhead of frequent re-indexing and maintains query performance.

How might we handle jobs with extremely similar descriptions from different companies?

If multiple postings share identical or near-identical text, their embeddings will be almost the same. When returning the top 10 results, it’s possible they are all near-duplicates. You may introduce a diversity filter that examines additional features such as company, location, or a threshold on similarity scores to reduce duplicates. This ensures end-users see a varied set of recommended positions.

Could we leverage other signals beyond text similarity?

Yes, signals like how often the same users viewed or applied to certain groups of jobs can be integrated as user-behavior embeddings. One approach is to add a collaboration filtering or user-job interaction matrix factorization approach. Then you combine textual similarity with user behavioral similarity to yield more personalized and accurate “related jobs.”

If we deploy in multiple regions, what are considerations for multi-lingual or cross-lingual job postings?

You can use multilingual transformers (like XLM-based or multilingual BERT) to produce embeddings that align job postings across different languages in a shared vector space. Region-specific indexing or sharding might also be practical if the volume of job postings is extremely high. Otherwise, a single global index can be used with a multi-lingual embedding model that aligns semantically similar texts in different languages.

Handling real-time retrieval when the user clicks a job link?

Since the user expects an instant response, the retrieval pipeline should be optimized. Typically, the embedding for a newly posted job might be precomputed at ingestion. For older jobs, the embeddings are already in the index. A single nearest-neighbor query in a well-optimized FAISS or Annoy index can return results within milliseconds. Ensuring the query layer has enough compute and is distributed across multiple instances or servers helps maintain low-latency performance.

Dealing with concept drift or new job titles?

Job terminology changes over time, introducing new skill sets or titles (e.g., “Prompt Engineer” might not be in older datasets). Periodic retraining or fine-tuning of the embedding model on newly labeled data and updated corpora helps capture new vocabulary and maintain embedding quality. Incorporating an out-of-vocabulary handling mechanism (like subword tokenization) further mitigates issues with unseen terms.

By using a robust embedding-based system paired with approximate nearest neighbor search, you can reliably and efficiently show users highly related jobs, even as the database of postings grows by millions daily.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How do we handle user-specific constraints like location or contract type when retrieving related jobs?

One common scenario is that a user might only be interested in jobs within a certain city or looking for specific employment types (e.g., full-time vs. part-time). If we simply use a global similarity measure based on text embeddings, we may return many irrelevant jobs outside the user’s desired constraints.

Approach:

1. Filtering Before Search: When constructing the ANN index, it is often faster to partition or label entries by location or job type, so that at query time, we limit the neighbors to a specific subset. For example, if the user’s location is “New York,” we only query the partition for that city. This avoids retrieving jobs from distant locations.

2. Filtering After Search: Alternatively, we can retrieve the top 50 or 100 most similar embeddings, then filter out those that do not match location or contract type, leaving the top 10 relevant results. This is straightforward to implement but might miss jobs that were slightly lower in similarity but still meet the user’s constraints.

3. Hybrid Approach: For very large geographies or specialized constraints, we might combine coarse partition-based filtering with a post-filter step.

Pitfalls:

• Over-filtering might exclude jobs that are still relevant (e.g., remote-friendly roles).

• Under-filtering might show the user many out-of-scope results.

• Maintaining multiple partitions can become complex at scale if you have many dimensions (location, contract type, skill domain, etc.). Partition strategies must be carefully planned to avoid an explosion in index size.

How can we deal with job postings that expire or have a very short lifespan?

Many job postings are time-sensitive; after a certain period, they’re no longer valid. If these postings remain in the index, users might see irrelevant or expired jobs in their recommendations.

Approach:

1. Timestamping and Expiry: Each entry in the index can store a timestamp or an expiration date. During query time, you can either filter out entries older than a threshold or dynamically remove them from the index.

2. Incremental Index Updates: Some ANN libraries support removals (though not all are equally efficient at handling deletions). Periodically, the system can rebuild or refresh the index, excluding expired postings.

3. Soft Deletions: Mark items as “inactive” in the database or index, but do not physically remove them. The query layer checks this flag and excludes them from results.

Pitfalls:

• Rebuilding large indexes can be computationally expensive, so it is important to pick a refresh cadence (daily or weekly) aligned with the number of expiring postings and your available compute resources.

• If postings frequently come in and expire, repeated full index rebuilds can cause downtime or degrade performance.

What if the domain shifts or new roles are introduced, causing embeddings to become stale?

Job markets evolve, and certain new job titles or technologies emerge quickly (e.g., “Generative AI Engineer”). An embedding model trained on older data might not capture these new nuances, leading to poor semantic representation.

Approach:

1. Periodic Model Retraining: Gather new job postings over time and periodically fine-tune or retrain the language model so it understands emerging terminology.

2. Online Learning for Embeddings: In more advanced setups, you can adapt embedding models incrementally if you have a stream of labeled data or textual corpora that represent new or changing terms.

3. Fallback Mechanisms: If the model encounters words it doesn’t recognize, subword tokenization helps, but you might also add domain-specific vocabulary expansions for new job categories.

Pitfalls:

• Overfitting to new terms if the training dataset is not diverse enough.

• Resource-intensive retraining cycles.

• Deciding how frequently to retrain (too frequent can be costly, too sparse can degrade recommendation quality).

How do we handle peak concurrent traffic for searches, especially if millions of queries happen simultaneously?

When many users are browsing and each triggers a nearest neighbor query, the system can experience load spikes that strain resources.

Approach:

1. Horizontal Scaling: Distribute the ANN index across multiple servers or shards, each responsible for a portion of the embedding space. Load balancers route queries to different shards in parallel.

2. Batching Queries: Where feasible, batch multiple queries together to leverage GPU-based batch similarity computations in frameworks like FAISS. This can drastically reduce per-query overhead.

3. Caching and Precomputing: For extremely popular job postings, you can precompute the top related jobs and cache them. This leads to instant retrieval without repeated ANN lookups.

Pitfalls:

• Maintaining consistent replicas of the index across multiple servers requires synchronization.

• Caching can become stale if job data changes frequently.

• Infrastructure cost might surge if you overscale for peak traffic.

How can we incorporate advanced personalization signals while still using text embeddings?

Basic text embeddings capture similarities in job content. However, two individuals might prefer different jobs even if they have the same text-based match (e.g., a user who prioritizes career growth vs. a user who prioritizes salary).

Approach:

1. User Embeddings: Create or learn a user embedding from their job view history, clicked postings, or past applications. You can use collaborative filtering or matrix factorization. Then combine user embedding with job embeddings to compute a personalized match score.

2. Re-ranking: The ANN index returns the top 50 text-similar jobs. Then a re-ranking model uses user-specific features (e.g., location preference, skill set, seniority preferences) to reorder those results.

3. Blending Scores: Weighted combination of text similarity with user preference signals. For example, define a final ranking score as alpha * text_similarity + (1 - alpha) * user_similarity. Tuning alpha can be done via A/B testing.

Pitfalls:

• Cold-start problem if new users have minimal activity (no user embeddings).

• Might need complex data pipelines to continually update user embeddings as they browse.

• Overfitting to individual users can happen if the personalization signal is too strong, causing filter bubbles.

How might we handle multi-lingual data in a distributed environment where each region has its own indexing service?

Large platforms may serve multiple countries. Each region might have a local language plus international jobs.

Approach:

1. Shared Multi-Lingual Model: Use a model that can handle multiple languages (like XLM-R). This can embed multiple languages into a shared latent space, allowing cross-lingual matching if that’s relevant.

2. Regional Sharding: Maintain separate indexes for each primary language or region to keep search efficiency high. If cross-region matching is needed, route the query to multiple indexes, then combine or re-rank the results.

3. Language Detection: At ingestion, detect the primary language of the job text, then route embeddings to the appropriate region-specific index.

Pitfalls:

• Siloed indexes might lead to duplication of resources if certain jobs need to appear across multiple regions.

• Language detection errors can affect embedding accuracy.

• Localization issues if text includes code-switching or domain-specific jargon.

How would you approach fully unsupervised vs. semi-supervised vs. supervised techniques for generating embeddings?

Depending on the data availability and labels, you might choose different approaches:

• Unsupervised: Pretrained language models (like BERT) or self-supervised methods on large corpora of job postings. Easy to implement, no labeled data required, but might not capture domain-specific nuances perfectly.

• Semi-Supervised: Fine-tuning a pretrained model on some labeled pairs of related or unrelated job postings. The partial labeled data can help the model better learn job-specific semantics.

• Supervised: If you have an extensive dataset of job pairs that are labeled “similar” or “not similar,” you can train a pairwise or contrastive model from scratch, ensuring embeddings are highly specialized to the job domain.

Pitfalls:

• Overfitting in supervised settings if the labeled data is limited or biased.

• Maintenance overhead is higher with supervised methods (label collection and updating).

• Unsupervised embeddings might miss the domain-specific structure of job postings.

How do we handle incremental compute cost if the job descriptions are extremely long or complex?

Some job postings can be lengthy with multiple paragraphs, bullet points, and disclaimers. Encoding these in transformers can be computationally expensive.

Approach:

1. Summarization: Use text summarization (extractive or abstractive) to shorten the job description before embedding.

2. Chunking: Split the job description into smaller chunks, create embeddings for each, and then pool or average them.

3. Concise Fields: Rely more on fields like job title, required skills, or the first few paragraphs that typically hold the most valuable information.

Pitfalls:

• Summaries might omit important details, possibly hurting match quality.

• Chunking can lead to ignoring context across boundaries.

• Large-scale summarization pipelines can add non-trivial latency and cost.

How might we measure and ensure the fairness of the “related jobs” feature?

Bias and fairness can be a concern. For instance, a system might systematically recommend fewer senior-level positions to underrepresented groups or steer certain demographic segments toward specific roles.

Approach:

1. Audit for Bias: Evaluate the recommended sets for systematically skewed distributions of job types or roles.

2. Algorithmic Debiasing: If you have access to demographic data or proxies, you can adjust embeddings or re-rank results to ensure more equitable representation.

3. Transparency & Controls: Provide disclaimers or user controls so that candidates can broaden or refine their search criteria if they suspect bias.

Pitfalls:

• Lack of direct demographic data can make auditing difficult.

• Over-correcting might degrade relevance or harm the user experience.

• Regulatory compliance might require systematic fairness reviews, especially in hiring contexts (EEO considerations in the United States).

How do we prevent malicious content or spam postings from contaminating the embeddings and affecting related job recommendations?

Job boards sometimes receive spam or fraudulent postings. If these postings make it into the index, users might see suspicious or dangerous listings as recommendations.

Approach:

1. Pre-Moderation: Use automated keyword detection, blacklisted phrases, or domain-based blocking to detect spam. Only approved postings get embedded and indexed.

2. Outlier Detection: Monitor embedding distributions and flag suspicious postings that appear as outliers.

3. Human Verification: For high-risk domains, require manual approval or additional verification steps.

Pitfalls:

• Over-aggressive filtering can remove legitimate but unconventional postings.

• Criminals can adapt to known detection patterns, requiring ongoing updates to spam filters.

• Malicious postings might cleverly mirror the text of legitimate jobs, requiring advanced behavioral or metadata checks.