Data-Engineer-Associate AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate (DEA-C01) Question and Answers

The issue described is that theAWS Glue jobis reprocessing files from previous runs despite the bookmark feature being enabled. Bookmarks in AWS Glue allow jobs to keep track of which files or data have already been processed to avoid reprocessing. The most likely reason for reprocessing the files is missingS3 permissions, specificallys3

s3

is a permission required by AWS Glue when bookmarks are enabled to ensure Glue can retrieve metadata from the files in S3, which is necessary for the bookmark mechanism to function correctly. Without this permission, Glue cannot track which files have been processed, resulting in reprocessing during subsequent runs.

Concurrency settings (Option B)andthe version of AWS Glue (Option C)do not affect the bookmark behavior. Similarly, the lack of acommit statement (Option D)is not applicable in this context, as Glue handles commits internally when interacting with Redshift and S3.

Thus, the root cause is likely related to insufficient permissions on the S3 bucket, specificallys3

, which is required for bookmarks to work as expected.

For near real-time processing of new files in S3,event-driven ingestionis optimal. S3 Event Notifications can triggerAWS Lambdato immediately load data into Amazon Redshift, eliminating latency associated with batch scheduling.

“Event-based triggers using S3 notifications and Lambda functions are effective for near real-time ingestion pipelines into Amazon Redshift.”

–Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

Option C (Glue bookmarks) is best for batch jobs, and zero-ETL applies toAurora to Redshift, not S3.

Concurrency scaling is a feature that allows you to support thousands of concurrent users and queries, with consistently fast query performance. When you turn on concurrency scaling, Amazon Redshift automatically adds query processing power in seconds to process queries without any delays. You can manage which queries are sent to the concurrency-scaling cluster by configuring WLM queues. To turn on concurrency scaling for a queue, set the Concurrency Scaling mode value to auto. The other optionsare either incorrect or irrelevant, as they do not enable concurrency scaling for the existing Redshift cluster on RA3 nodes. References:

Working with concurrency scaling - Amazon Redshift

Amazon Redshift Concurrency Scaling - Amazon Web Services

Configuring concurrency scaling queues - Amazon Redshift

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide (Chapter 6, page 163)

To achieve the highest throughput and efficiently use cluster resources while loading data into an Amazon Redshift cluster, the optimal approach is to use asingle COPY commandthat ingests data in parallel.

Option D: Use a single COPY command to load the data into the Redshift cluster.TheCOPY commandis designed to load data from multiple files in parallel into a Redshift table, using all the cluster nodes to optimize the load process. Redshift is optimized for parallel processing, and a single COPY command can load multiple files at once, maximizing throughput.

Options A, B, and Ceither involve unnecessary complexity or inefficient approaches, such as using multiple COPY commands or INSERT statements, which are not optimized for bulk loading.

The company needs to use machine learning models for real-time inventory recommendations and future inventory predictions while leveraging both Amazon Redshift and Amazon SageMaker.

Option A: Use Amazon Redshift ML to generate inventory recommendations.Amazon Redshift MLallows you to build, train, and deploy machine learning models directly from Redshift using SQL statements. It integrates with SageMaker to train models and run inference. This feature is useful for generating inventory recommendations directly from the data stored in Redshift.

Option B: Use SQL to invoke a remote SageMaker endpoint for prediction.You can use SQL in Redshift to call aSageMaker endpointfor real-time inference. By invoking a SageMaker endpoint from within Redshift, the company can get real-time predictions on inventory, allowing for integration between the data warehouse and the machine learning model hosted in SageMaker.

Option C (offline model training)andOption D (creating dashboards with SageMaker Autopilot)are not relevant to the real-time prediction and recommendation requirements.

Option E (archiving inventory reports in Redshift)is not related to making predictions or recommendations.

Amazon Redshift supportsRole-Based Access Control (RBAC)to manage access to database objects. RBAC allows administrators to create roles for job functions and assign privileges at the schema, table, or column level based on data sensitivity and user roles.

“RBAC in Amazon Redshift helps manage permissions more efficiently at scale by assigning users to roles that reflect their job function. It simplifies user management and secures access based on job role and data sensitivity.”

–Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

RBAC is preferred over RLS or CLS alone because it offers a more comprehensive and scalable solution across multiple users and permissions.

Problem Analysis:

The company usesDynamoDBfor gaming data storage and needs to ingest data intoAmazon OpenSearch Serviceinnear real time.

Data updates must propagate quickly to OpenSearch for analytics or search purposes.

Key Considerations:

DynamoDB Streamsprovide near-real-time capture of table changes (inserts, updates, and deletes).

Integration withAWS Lambdaallows seamless processing of these changes.

OpenSearch offers APIs for indexing and updating documents, which Lambda can invoke.

Solution Analysis:

Option A: Step Functions with Periodic Export

Not suitable for near-real-time updates; introduces significant latency.

Operationally complex to manage periodic exports and S3 data ingestion.

Option B: AWS Glue Job

AWS Glue is designed for ETL workloads but lacks real-time processing capabilities.

Option C: DynamoDB Streams + Lambda

DynamoDB Streams capture changes in near real time.

Lambda can process these streams and use the OpenSearch API to update the index.

This approach provides low latency and seamless integration with minimal operational overhead.

Option D: Custom OpenSearch Plugin

Writing a custom plugin adds complexity and is unnecessary with existing AWS integrations.

Implementation Steps:

EnableDynamoDB Streamsfor the relevant DynamoDB tables.

Create aLambda functionto process stream records:

Parse insert, update, and delete events.

Use OpenSearch APIs to index or update documents based on the event type.

Set up a trigger to invoke the Lambda function whenever there are changes in the DynamoDB Stream.

Monitor and log errors for debugging and operational health.

The best solution to meet the requirements of creating a data catalog that includes the IoT data, and allowing the analytics department to index the data, most cost-effectively, is to create an Amazon Athena workgroup, explore the data that is in Amazon S3 by using Apache Spark through Athena, and provide the Athena workgroup schema and tables to the analytics department.

Amazon Athena is a serverless, interactive query service that makes it easy to analyze data directly in Amazon S3 using standard SQL or Python1. Amazon Athena also supports Apache Spark, an open-source distributed processing framework that can run large-scale data analytics applications across clusters of servers2. You can use Athena to run Spark code on data in Amazon S3 without having to set up, manage, or scale anyinfrastructure. You can also use Athena to create and manage external tables that pointto your data in Amazon S3, and store them in an external data catalog, such as AWS Glue Data Catalog, Amazon Athena Data Catalog, or your own Apache Hive metastore3. You can create Athena workgroups to separate query execution and resource allocation based on different criteria, such as users, teams, or applications4. You can share the schemas and tables in your Athena workgroup with other users or applications, such as Amazon QuickSight, for data visualization and analysis5.

Using Athena and Spark to create a data catalog and explore the IoT data in Amazon S3 is the most cost-effective solution, as you pay only for the queries you run or the compute you use, and you pay nothing when the service is idle1. You also save on the operational overhead and complexity of managing data warehouse infrastructure, as Athena and Spark are serverless and scalable. You can also benefit from the flexibility and performance of Athena and Spark, as they support various data formats, including JSON, and can handle schema changes and complex queries efficiently.

Option A is not the best solution, as creating an AWS Glue Data Catalog, configuring an AWS Glue Schema Registry, creating a new AWS Glue workload to orchestrate the ingestion of the data that the analytics department will use into Amazon Redshift Serverless, would incur more costs and complexity than using Athena and Spark. AWS Glue Data Catalog is a persistent metadata store that contains table definitions, job definitions, and other control information to help you manage your AWS Glue components6. AWS Glue Schema Registry is a service that allows you to centrally store and manage the schemas of your streaming data in AWS Glue Data Catalog7. AWS Glue is a serverless data integration service that makes it easy to prepare, clean, enrich, and move data between data stores8. Amazon Redshift Serverless is a feature of Amazon Redshift, a fully managed data warehouse service, that allows you to run and scale analytics without having to manage data warehouse infrastructure9. While these services are powerful and useful for many data engineering scenarios, they are not necessary or cost-effective for creating a data catalog and indexing the IoT data in Amazon S3. AWS Glue Data Catalog and Schema Registry charge you based on the number of objects stored and the number of requests made67. AWS Glue charges you based on the compute time and the data processed by your ETL jobs8. Amazon Redshift Serverless charges you based on the amount of data scanned by your queries and the compute time used by your workloads9. These costs can add up quickly, especially if you have large volumes of IoT data and frequent schema changes. Moreover, using AWS Glue and Amazon Redshift Serverless would introduce additional latency and complexity, as you would have to ingest the data from Amazon S3 to Amazon Redshift Serverless, and then query it from there, instead of querying it directly from Amazon S3 using Athena and Spark.

Option B is not the best solution, as creating an Amazon Redshift provisioned cluster, creating an Amazon Redshift Spectrum database for the analytics department to explorethe data that is in Amazon S3, and creating Redshift stored procedures to load the data into Amazon Redshift, would incur more costs and complexity than using Athena and Spark. Amazon Redshift provisioned clusters are clusters that you create and manage by specifying the number and type of nodes, and the amount of storage and compute capacity10. Amazon Redshift Spectrum is a feature of Amazon Redshift that allows you to query and join data across your data warehouse and your data lake using standard SQL11. Redshift stored procedures are SQL statements that you can define and store in Amazon Redshift, and then call them by using the CALL command12. While these features are powerful and useful for many data warehousing scenarios, they are not necessary or cost-effective for creating a data catalog and indexing the IoT data in Amazon S3. Amazon Redshift provisioned clusters charge you based on the node type, the number of nodes, and the duration of the cluster10. Amazon Redshift Spectrum charges you based on the amount of data scanned by your queries11. These costs can add up quickly, especially if you have large volumes of IoT data and frequent schema changes. Moreover, using Amazon Redshift provisioned clusters and Spectrum would introduce additional latency and complexity, as you would have to provision and manage the cluster, create an external schema and database for the data in Amazon S3, and load the data into the cluster using stored procedures, instead of querying it directly from Amazon S3 using Athena and Spark.

Option D is not the best solution, as creating an AWS Glue Data Catalog, configuring an AWS Glue Schema Registry, creating AWS Lambda user defined functions (UDFs) by using the Amazon Redshift Data API, and creating an AWS Step Functions job to orchestrate the ingestion of the data that the analytics department will use into Amazon Redshift Serverless, would incur more costs and complexity than using Athena and Spark. AWS Lambda is a serverless compute service that lets you run code without provisioning or managing servers13. AWS Lambda UDFs are Lambda functions that you can invoke from within an Amazon Redshift query. Amazon Redshift Data API is a service that allows you to run SQL statements on Amazon Redshift clusters using HTTP requests, without needing a persistent connection. AWS Step Functions is a service that lets you coordinate multiple AWS services into serverless workflows. While these services are powerful and useful for many data engineering scenarios, they are not necessary or cost-effective for creating a data catalog and indexing the IoT data in Amazon S3. AWS Glue Data Catalog and Schema Registry charge you based on thenumber of objects stored and the number of requests made67. AWS Lambda charges you based on the number of requests and the duration of your functions13. Amazon Redshift Serverless charges you based on the amount of data scanned by your queries and the compute time used by your workloads9. AWS Step Functions charges you based on the number of state transitions in your workflows. These costs can add up quickly, especially if you have large volumes of IoT data and frequent schema changes. Moreover, using AWS Glue, AWS Lambda, Amazon Redshift Data API, and AWS Step Functions would introduce additionallatency and complexity, as you would have to create and invoke Lambda functions to ingest the data from Amazon S3 to Amazon Redshift Serverless using the Data API, and coordinate the ingestion process using Step Functions, instead of querying it directly from Amazon S3 using Athena and Spark. References:

What is Amazon Athena?

Apache Spark on Amazon Athena

Creating tables, updating the schema, and adding new partitions in the Data Catalog from AWS Glue ETL jobs

Managing Athena workgroups

Using Amazon QuickSight to visualize data in Amazon Athena

AWS Glue Data Catalog

AWS Glue Schema Registry

What is AWS Glue?

Amazon Redshift Serverless

Amazon Redshift provisioned clusters

Querying external data using Amazon Redshift Spectrum

Using stored procedures in Amazon Redshift

What is AWS Lambda?

[Creating and using AWS Lambda UDFs]

[Using the Amazon Redshift Data API]

[What is AWS Step Functions?]

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide

Athena workgroups are a way to isolate query execution and query history among users, teams, and applications that share the same AWS account. By creating a workgroup for each use case, the company can control the access and actions on the workgroup resource using resource-level IAM permissions or identity-based IAM policies. The company can also use tags to organize and identify the workgroups, and use them as conditions in the IAM policies to grant or deny permissions to the workgroup. This solution meets the requirements of separating query processes and access to query history among users, teams, and applications that are in the same AWS account. References:

Athena Workgroups

IAM policies for accessing workgroups

Workgroup example policies

The STL ALERT EVENT LOG table view records anomalies when the query optimizer identifies conditions that might indicate performance issues. These conditions include skewed data distribution, missing statistics, nested loop joins, and broadcasted data. The STL ALERT EVENT LOG table view can help the data engineer to identify and troubleshoot the root causes of performance issues and optimize the query execution plan. The other table views are not relevant for this requirement. STL USAGE CONTROL records the usage limits and quotas for Amazon Redshift resources. STL QUERY METRICS records the execution time and resource consumption of queries. STL PLAN INFO records the query execution plan and the steps involved in each query. References:

STL ALERT EVENT LOG

System Tables and Views

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide

 Amazon DynamoDB is a fully managed NoSQL database service that provides fast and predictable performance with seamless scalability. DynamoDB offers two capacity modes for throughput capacity: provisioned and on-demand. In provisioned capacity mode, you specify the number of read and write capacity units per second that you expect your application to require. DynamoDB reserves the resources to meet your throughput needs with consistent performance. In on-demand capacity mode, you pay per request and DynamoDB scales the resources up and down automatically based on the actual workload. On-demand capacity mode is suitable for unpredictable workloads that can vary significantly over time1.

The solution that meets the requirements in the most cost-effective way is to use AWS Application Auto Scaling to schedule higher provisioned capacity for peak usage times and lower capacity during off-peak times. This solution has the following advantages:

It allows you to optimize the cost and performance of your DynamoDB table by adjusting the provisioned capacity according to your predictable workload patterns. You can use scheduled scaling to specify the date and time for the scaling actions, and the new minimum and maximum capacity limits. For example, you can schedule higher capacity for every Monday morning and lower capacity for weekends2.

It enables you to take advantage of the lower cost per unit of provisioned capacity mode compared to on-demand capacity mode. Provisioned capacity mode charges a flat hourly rate for the capacity you reserve, regardless of how much you use. On-demand capacity mode charges for each read and write request you consume, with no minimum capacity required. For predictable workloads, provisioned capacity mode can be more cost-effective than on-demand capacity mode1.

It ensures that your application performs consistently during peak usage times by having enough capacity to handle the increased load. You can also use auto scaling to automatically adjust the provisioned capacity based on the actual utilization of your table, and set a target utilization percentage for your table or global secondary index. This way, you can avoid under-provisioning or over-provisioning your table2.

Option A is incorrect because it suggests increasing the provisioned capacity to the maximum capacity that is currently present during peak load times. This solution has the following disadvantages:

It wastes money by paying for unused capacity during off-peak times. If you provision the same high capacity for all times, regardless of the actual workload, you are over-provisioning your table and paying for resources that you don’t need1.

It does not account for possible changes in the workload patterns over time. If your peak load times increase or decrease in the future, you may need to manually adjust the provisioned capacity to match the new demand. This adds operational overhead and complexity to your application2.

Option B is incorrect because it suggests dividing the table into two tables and provisioning each table with half of the provisioned capacity of the original table. This solution has the following disadvantages:

It complicates the data model and the application logic by splitting the data into two separate tables. You need to ensure that the queries are evenly distributed across both tables, and that the data is consistent and synchronized between them. This adds extra development and maintenance effort to your application3.

It does not solve the problem of adjusting the provisioned capacity according to the workload patterns. You still need to manually or automatically scale the capacity of each table based on the actual utilization and demand. This may result in under-provisioning or over-provisioning your tables2.

Option D is incorrect because it suggests changing the capacity mode from provisioned to on-demand. This solution has the following disadvantages:

It may incur higher costs than provisioned capacity mode for predictable workloads. On-demand capacity mode charges for each read and write request you consume, with no minimum capacity required. For predictable workloads, provisioned capacity mode can be more cost-effective than on-demand capacity mode, as you can reserve the capacity you need at a lower rate1.

It may not provide consistent performance during peak usage times, as on-demand capacity mode may take some time to scale up the resources to meet the sudden increase in demand. On-demand capacity mode uses adaptive capacity to handle bursts of traffic, but it may not be able to handle very large spikes or sustained high throughput. In such cases, you may experience throttling or increased latency.

Explanation: Scheduling an AWS Glue crawler to periodically update the Data Catalog automates the process of detecting new partitions and updating the catalog, which minimizes manual maintenance and operational overhead.

The data engineer needs to orchestrate ETL jobs that include Spark jobs on Amazon EMR, API calls to Salesforce, and loading data into Redshift. They also need automatic failure handling and retries.Amazon Managed Workflows for Apache Airflow (Amazon MWAA)is the best solution for this requirement.

Option A: Amazon Managed Workflows for Apache Airflow (Amazon MWAA)Apache Airflow is designed for complex job orchestration, allowing users to define workflows (DAGs) in Python. MWAA manages Airflow and its integrations with other AWS services, including Amazon EMR, Redshift, and external APIs like Salesforce. It provides automatic retry handling, failure detection, and detailed monitoring, which fits the use case perfectly.

Option B (AWS Step Functions)can orchestrate tasks but doesn't natively support complex workflow definitions with Python like Airflow does.

Option C (AWS Glue)is more focused on ETL and doesn't handle the orchestration of external systems like Salesforce as well as Airflow.

Option D (Amazon EventBridge)is more suited for event-driven architectures rather than complex workflow orchestration.

Problem Analysis:

The company ingests geolocation records (10 bytes each) at 10,000 records per second intoKinesis Data Streams.

Data transmission delays are acceptable, but the solution must maximize throughput efficiency.

Key Considerations:

TheKinesis Producer Library (KPL)batches records and uses aggregation to optimize shard throughput.

Efficiently handles high-throughput scenarios with minimal operational overhead.

Solution Analysis:

Option A: Kinesis Agent

Designed for file-based ingestion; not optimized for geolocation records.

Option B: KPL

Aggregates records into larger payloads, significantly improving shard throughput.

Suitable for applications generating small, high-frequency records.

Option C: Kinesis Firehose

Firehose is for delivery to destinations like S3 or Redshift and is not optimized for direct ingestion to Kinesis Data Streams.

Option D: Kinesis SDK

The SDK lacks advanced features like aggregation, resulting in lower throughput efficiency.

Final Recommendation:

UseKinesis Producer Library (KPL)for its built-in aggregation and batching capabilities.

The best solution to meet the requirements of giving data scientists the ability to query all data sources by using syntax similar to SQL with the least operational overhead is to use AWS Glue to crawl the data sources, store metadata in the AWS Glue Data Catalog, use Amazon Athena to query the data, use SQL for structured data sources, and use PartiQL for data that is stored in JSON format.

AWS Glue is a serverless data integration service that makes it easy to prepare, clean, enrich, and move data between data stores1. AWS Glue crawlers are processes that connect to a data store, progress through a prioritized list of classifiers to determine the schema for your data, and then create metadata tables in the Data Catalog2. The Data Catalog is a persistent metadata store that contains table definitions, job definitions, and other control information to help you manage your AWS Glue components3. You can use AWS Glue to crawl the data sources, such as Amazon S3, Amazon RDS for Microsoft SQL Server, and Amazon DynamoDB, and store the metadata in the Data Catalog.

Amazon Athena is a serverless, interactive query service that makes it easy to analyze data directly in Amazon S3 using standard SQL or Python4. Amazon Athena also supports PartiQL, a SQL-compatible query language that lets you query, insert, update, and delete data from semi-structured and nested data, such as JSON. You can use Amazon Athena to query the data from the Data Catalog using SQL for structured data sources, such as .csv files and relational databases, and PartiQL for data that is stored in JSON format. You can also use Athena to query data from other data sources, such as Amazon Redshift, using federated queries.

Using AWS Glue and Amazon Athena to query all data sources by using syntax similar to SQL is the least operational overhead solution, as you do not need to provision, manage, or scale any infrastructure, and you pay only for the resources you use. AWS Glue charges you based on the compute time and the data processed by your crawlers and ETL jobs1. Amazon Athena charges you based on the amount of data scanned by your queries. You can also reduce the cost and improve the performance of your queries by using compression, partitioning, and columnar formats for your data in Amazon S3.

Option B is not the best solution, as using AWS Glue to crawl the data sources, store metadata in the AWS Glue Data Catalog, and use Redshift Spectrum to query the data, would incur more costs and complexity than using Amazon Athena. Redshift Spectrum is a feature of Amazon Redshift, a fully managed data warehouse service, that allows you to query and join data across your data warehouse and your data lake using standard SQL. While Redshift Spectrum is powerful and useful for many data warehousing scenarios, it is not necessary or cost-effective for querying all data sources by using syntax similar to SQL. Redshift Spectrum charges you based on the amount of data scanned by your queries, which is similar to Amazon Athena, but it also requires you to have an Amazon Redshift cluster, which charges you based on the node type, the number of nodes, and the duration of the cluster5. These costs can add up quickly, especially if you have large volumes of data and complex queries. Moreover, using Redshift Spectrum would introduce additional latency and complexity, as you would have to provision and manage the cluster, and create an external schema and database for the data in the Data Catalog, instead of querying it directly from Amazon Athena.

Option C is not the best solution, as using AWS Glue to crawl the data sources, store metadata in the AWS Glue Data Catalog, use AWS Glue jobs to transform data that is in JSON format to Apache Parquet or .csv format, store the transformed data in an S3 bucket, and use Amazon Athena to query the original and transformed data from the S3 bucket, would incur more costs and complexity than using Amazon Athena with PartiQL. AWS Glue jobs are ETL scripts that you can write in Python or Scala to transform your data and load it to your target data store. Apache Parquet is a columnar storage format that can improve the performance of analytical queries by reducing the amount of data that needs to be scanned and providing efficient compression and encoding schemes6. While using AWS Glue jobs and Parquet can improve the performance and reduce the cost of your queries, they would also increase the complexity and the operational overhead of the data pipeline, as you would have to write, run, and monitor the ETL jobs, and store the transformed data in a separate location in Amazon S3. Moreover, using AWS Glue jobs and Parquet would introduce additional latency, as you would have to wait for the ETL jobs to finish before querying the transformed data.

Option D is not the best solution, as using AWS Lake Formation to create a data lake, use Lake Formation jobs to transform the data from all data sources to Apache Parquet format, store the transformed data in an S3 bucket, and use Amazon Athena or RedshiftSpectrum to query the data, would incur more costs and complexity than using Amazon Athena with PartiQL. AWS Lake Formation is a service that helps you centrally govern, secure, and globally share data for analytics and machine learning7. Lake Formation jobs are ETL jobs that you can create and run using the Lake Formation console or API. While using Lake Formation and Parquet can improve the performance and reduce the cost of your queries, they would also increase the complexity and the operational overhead of the data pipeline, as you would have to create, run, and monitor the Lake Formation jobs, and store the transformed data in a separate location in Amazon S3. Moreover, using Lake Formation and Parquet would introduce additional latency, as you would have to wait for the Lake Formation jobs to finish before querying the transformed data. Furthermore, using Redshift Spectrum to query the data would also incur the same costs and complexity as mentioned in option B. References:

What is Amazon Athena?

Data Catalog and crawlers in AWS Glue

AWS Glue Data Catalog

Columnar Storage Formats

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide

AWS Glue Schema Registry

What is AWS Glue?

Amazon Redshift Serverless

Amazon Redshift provisioned clusters

[Querying external data using Amazon Redshift Spectrum]

[Using stored procedures in Amazon Redshift]

[What is AWS Lambda?]

[PartiQL for Amazon Athena]

[Federated queries in Amazon Athena]

[Amazon Athena pricing]

[Top 10 performance tuning tips for Amazon Athena]

[AWS Glue ETL jobs]

[AWS Lake Formation jobs]

Problem Analysis:

The goal is to create anew empty tablein Athena with the same schema as an existing table (old_table).

The solution must avoid copying any data.

Key Considerations:

CREATE TABLE AS (CTAS)is commonly used in Athena for creating new tables based on an existing table.

Adding the WITH NO DATA clause ensures only the schema is copied, without transferring any data.

Solution Analysis:

Option A: Copies both schema and data. Does not meet the requirement for an empty table.

Option B: Inserts data into an existing table, which does not create a new table.

Option C: Creates an empty table but does not copy the schema.

Option D: Creates a new table with the same schema and ensures it is empty by using WITH NO DATA.

Final Recommendation:

UseD. CREATE TABLE new_table AS (SELECT * FROM old_table) WITH NO DATAto create an empty table with the same schema.

The most efficient and low-operational-overhead solution for ingesting data into Amazon Redshift from Amazon Kinesis Data Streams is to useAmazon Redshift streaming ingestion. This feature allows Redshift to directly ingest streaming data from Kinesis Data Streams and process it in real-time.

Amazon Redshift Streaming Ingestion:

Redshift supports native streaming ingestion from Kinesis Data Streams, allowing real-time data to be queried usingmaterialized views.

This solution reduces operational complexity because you don't need intermediary services like Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose or S3 for batch loading.

For exactly-once delivery and processing in Amazon Kinesis Data Streams, the best approach is to design the application so that it handlesidempotency. By embedding aunique IDin each record, the application can identify and remove duplicate records during processing.

Exactly-Once Processing:

Kinesis Data Streams does not natively support exactly-once processing. Therefore,idempotencyshould be designed into the application, ensuring that each record has a unique identifier so that the same event is processed only once, even if it is ingested multiple times.

This pattern is widely used for achieving exactly-once semantics in distributed systems.

 This solution meets the requirements of implementing real-time analytics capabilities with the least operational overhead. By creating an external schema in Amazon Redshift, you can access the data from Kinesis Data Streams using SQL queries without having to load the data into the cluster. By creating a materialized view on top of the stream, you can store the results of the query in the cluster and make them available for analysis. By setting the materialized view to auto refresh, you can ensure that the view is updated with the latest data from the stream at regular intervals. This way, you can derive near real-time insights by using existing BI and analytics tools. References:

Amazon Redshift streaming ingestion

Creating an external schema for Amazon Kinesis Data Streams

Creating a materialized view for Amazon Kinesis Data Streams

TheRootDiskUsedmetric for the MSK cluster indicates that the storage on the broker is reaching its capacity. The best solution is to expand the storage of the MSK broker and enable automatic storage expansion to prevent future alarms.

Expand MSK Broker Storage:

AWS Managed Streaming for Apache Kafka (MSK) allows you toexpand the broker storageto accommodate growing data volumes. Additionally,auto-expansionof storage can be configured to ensure that storage grows automatically as the data increases.

The company wants to gather information aboutincomplete multipart uploadsandoutdated versionsin its Amazon S3 buckets to optimize storage costs.

Option B: Use Amazon S3 Inventory configurations reports to gather the information.S3 Inventoryprovides reports that can list incomplete multipart uploads and versions of objects stored in S3. It offers an easy, automated way to track object metadata across buckets, including data necessary for cost optimization, without manual effort.

Options A (AWS CLI), C (S3 Storage Lens), and D (usage reports) either do not specifically gather the required information about incomplete uploads and outdated versions or require more manual intervention.

Problem Analysis:

The company needs to migrate both anapplicationand anon-premises Apache Kafka serverto AWS.

Incremental updates from an on-premises Oracle database are processed by Kafka.

The solution must follow areplatform migration strategy, prioritizing minimal changes andlow management overhead.

Key Considerations:

Replatform Strategy: This approach keeps the application and architecture as close to the original as possible, reducing the need for refactoring.

The solution must provide amanaged Kafka serviceto minimize operational burden.

Low overhead solutions like serverless services are preferred.

Solution Analysis:

Option A: Kinesis Data Streams

Kinesis Data Streams is an AWS-native streaming service but is not a direct substitute for Kafka.

This option would require significant application refactoring, which does not align with the replatform strategy.

Option B: MSK Provisioned Cluster

Managed Kafka service with fully configurable clusters.

Provides the same Kafka APIs but requires cluster management (e.g., scaling, patching), increasing management overhead.

Option C: Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose

Kinesis Data Firehose is designed for data delivery rather than real-time streaming and processing.

Not suitable for Kafka-based applications.

Option D: MSK Serverless

MSK Serverless eliminates the need for cluster management while maintaining compatibility with Kafka APIs.

Automatically scales based on workload, reducing operational overhead.

Ideal for replatform migrations, as it requires minimal changes to the application.

Final Recommendation:

Amazon MSK Serverlessis the best solution for migrating the Kafka server and application with minimal changes and the least management overhead.

The best solution for fast, event-driven processing of unpredictable file uploads is to useS3 event notifications,CloudTrail, andEventBridgeto automatically trigger the AWS Glue workflow:

“You can configure S3 PutObject events to be captured by CloudTrail and forwarded through EventBridge to trigger an AWS Glue job or workflow. This allows Glue to begin processing as soon as the file arrives, with minimal latency.”

–Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

This option provides the lowest latency and least manual overhead compared to polling or scheduling solutions.

The best solution to ensure that the AWS Glue Data Catalog synchronizes with the S3 storage when the company adds new partitions to the bucket with the least latency is to use code that writes data to Amazon S3 to invoke the Boto3 AWS Glue create partition API call. This way, the Data Catalog is updated as soon as new data is written to S3, and the partition information is immediately available for querying by other services. The Boto3 AWS Glue create partition API call allows you to create a new partition in the Data Catalog by specifying the table name, the database name, and the partition values1. You can use this API call in your code that writes data to S3, such as a Python script or an AWS Glue ETL job, to create a partition for each new S3 object key that matches the partitioning scheme.

Option A is not the best solution, as scheduling an AWS Glue crawler to run every morning would introduce a significant latency between the time new data is written to S3 and the time the Data Catalog is updated. AWS Glue crawlers are processes that connect to a data store, progress through a prioritized list of classifiers to determine the schema for your data, and then create metadata tables in the Data Catalog2. Crawlers can be scheduled to run periodically, such as daily or hourly, but they cannot run continuously or in real-time. Therefore, using a crawler to synchronize the Data Catalog with the S3 storage would not meet the requirement of the least latency.

Option B is not the best solution, as manually running the AWS Glue CreatePartition API twice each day would also introduce a significant latency between the time new data is written to S3 and the time the Data Catalog is updated. Moreover, manually running the API would require more operational overhead and human intervention than using code that writes data to S3 to invoke the API automatically.

Option D is not the best solution, as running the MSCK REPAIR TABLE command from the AWS Glue console would also introduce a significant latency between the time new data is written to S3 and the time the Data Catalog is updated. The MSCK REPAIR TABLE command is a SQL command that you can run in the AWS Glue console to add partitions to the Data Catalog based on the S3 object keys that match the partitioning scheme3. However, this command is not meant to be run frequently or in real-time, as it can take a long time to scan the entire S3 bucket and add the partitions. Therefore, using this command to synchronize the Data Catalog with the S3 storage would not meet the requirement of the least latency. References:

AWS Glue CreatePartition API

Populating the AWS Glue Data Catalog

MSCK REPAIR TABLE Command

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide

 This solution meets the requirement of logging all writes to the S3 bucket into another S3 bucket with the least operational effort. AWS CloudTrail is a service that records the API calls made to AWS services, including Amazon S3. By creating a trail of data events, you can capture the details of the requests that are made to the transactions S3 bucket, such as the requester, the time, the IP address, and the response elements. By specifying an empty prefix and write-only events, you can filter the data events to only include the ones that write to the bucket. By specifying the logs S3 bucket as the destination bucket, you can store the CloudTrail logs in another S3 bucket that is in the same AWS Region. This solution does not require any additional coding or configuration, and it is more scalable and reliable than using S3 Event Notifications and Lambda functions. References:

Logging Amazon S3 API calls using AWS CloudTrail

Creating a trail for data events

Enabling Amazon S3 server access logging

Amazon Athena Federated Query is a feature that allows you to query data from multiple sources using standard SQL. You can use Athena Federated Query to join data from Amazon DynamoDB, Amazon RDS, Amazon Redshift, and Amazon S3, as well as other data sources such as MongoDB, Apache HBase, and Apache Kafka1. Athena Federated Query is a serverless and interactive service, meaning you do not need to provision or manage any infrastructure, and you only pay for the amount of data scanned by your queries. Athena Federated Query is the most cost-effective solution for performing a one-time analysis job on data from multiple sources, as it eliminates the need to copy or move data, and allows you to query data directly from the source.

The other options are not as cost-effective as Athena Federated Query, as they involve additional steps or costs. Option A requires you to provision and pay for an Amazon EMR cluster, which can be expensive and time-consuming for a one-time job. Option B requires you to copy or move data from DynamoDB, RDS, and Redshift to S3, which can incur additional costs for data transfer and storage, and also introduce latency and complexity. Option D requires you to have an existing Redshift cluster, which can be costly and may not be necessary for a one-time job. Option D also does not support querying data from RDS directly, so you would need to use Redshift Federated Query to access RDS data, which adds another layer of complexity2. References:

Amazon Athena Federated Query

Redshift Spectrum vs Federated Query

To achieve the most cost-effective storage solution, the data engineer needs to use an S3 Lifecycle policy that transitions objects to lower-cost storage classes based on their access patterns, and deletes them when they are no longer needed. The storage classes should also provide high availability, which means they should be resilient to the loss of data in a single Availability Zone1. Therefore, the solution must include the following steps:

Transition objects to S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) after 6 months. S3 Standard-IA is designed for data that is accessed less frequently, but requires rapid access when needed. It offers the same high durability, throughput, and low latency as S3 Standard, but with a lower storage cost and a retrieval fee2. Therefore, it is suitable for data files that are accessed once or twice each month. S3 Standard-IA also provides high availability, as it stores data redundantly across multiple Availability Zones1.

Transfer objects to S3 Glacier Deep Archive after 2 years. S3 Glacier Deep Archive is the lowest-cost storage class that offers secure and durable storage for data that is rarely accessed and can tolerate a 12-hour retrieval time. It is ideal for long-term archiving and digital preservation3. Therefore, it is suitable for data files that are accessed only once or twice each year. S3 Glacier Deep Archive also provides high availability, as it stores data across at least three geographically dispersed Availability Zones1.

Delete objects when they are no longer needed. The data engineer can specify an expiration action in the S3 Lifecycle policy to delete objects after a certain period of time. This will reduce the storage cost and comply with any data retention policies.

Option C is the only solution that includes all these steps. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

Option A is incorrect because it transitions objects to S3 One Zone-Infrequent Access (S3 One Zone-IA) after 6 months. S3 One Zone-IA is similar to S3 Standard-IA, but it stores data in a single Availability Zone. This means it has a lower availability and durability than S3 Standard-IA, and it is not resilient to the loss of data in a single Availability Zone1. Therefore, it does not provide high availability as required.

Option B is incorrect because it transfers objects to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval after 2 years. S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval is a storage class that offers secure and durable storage for data that is accessed infrequently and can tolerate a retrieval time of minutes to hours. It is more expensive than S3 Glacier Deep Archive, and it is not suitable for data that is accessed only once or twice each year3. Therefore, it is not the most cost-effective option.

Option D is incorrect because it combines the errors of option A and B. It transitions objects to S3 One Zone-IA after 6 months, which does not provide high availability, and it transfers objects to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval after 2 years, which is not the most cost-effective option.

In Amazon Managed Workflows for Apache Airflow (MWAA), the type of log that is most useful for diagnosing workflow (DAG) failures is theTask logs. These logs provide detailed information on the execution of each task within the DAG, including error messages, exceptions, and other critical details necessary for diagnosing failures.

Option D: YourEnvironmentName-TaskTask logs capture the output from the execution of each task within a workflow (DAG), which is crucial for understanding what went wrong when a DAG fails. These logs contain detailed execution information, including errors and stack traces, making them the best source for debugging.

Other options(WebServer, Scheduler, and DAGProcessing logs) provide general environment-level logs or logs related to scheduling and DAG parsing, but they do not provide the granular task-level execution details needed for diagnosing workflow failures.

For secure migration of data from an on-premises data center to AWS without using the public internet,AWS Direct Connectis the most secure and reliable method. UsingSecrets Managerto store service account credentials ensures that the credentials are managed securely with automatic rotation.

AWS Direct Connect:

Direct Connect establishes adedicated, private connectionbetween the on-premises data center and AWS, avoiding the public internet. This is ideal for secure, high-speed data transfers.

The best solution for managing SSL/TLS certificates on EC2 instances withminimal operational overheadis to useAWS Certificate Manager (ACM). ACM simplifies certificate management by automating the provisioning, renewal, and deployment of certificates.

AWS Certificate Manager (ACM):

ACM managesSSL/TLS certificatesfor EC2 and other AWS resources, including automatic certificate renewal. This reduces the need for manual management and avoids operational complexity.

ACM also integrates with other AWS services to simplify secure connections between AWS infrastructure and customer-managed environments.

To perform cross-Region snapshot copying of an encrypted Redshift cluster, AWS documentation and the exam study guide clearly outline two essential steps:

You must create a snapshot copy grant in thedestination Region.This allows Amazon Redshift to encrypt the snapshots using the specified AWS KMS key.

You must enable snapshot copying in thesource Regionand specify the name of the snapshot copy grant that was created in thedestination Region.

From the study guide:

“To enable cross-region copy of encrypted snapshots, you must create a snapshot copy grant in the destination Region and enable snapshot copying in the source Region by specifying the snapshot copy grant name.”

–Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

OptionE(Multi-AZ deployment) is not applicable to Amazon Redshift, which does not support Multi-AZ configurations like Amazon RDS.

Amazon RDS is a fully managed service that provides relational databases in the cloud. Amazon RDS for MySQL is one of the supported database engines that you can use to run your applications. Amazon RDS provides various features and tools to monitor and optimize the performance of your DB instances, such as Performance Insights, Enhanced Monitoring, CloudWatch metrics and alarms, etc.

Using the Performance Insights feature of Amazon RDS to identify queries that have high CPU utilization and optimizing the problematic queries will help reduce the CPU utilization of the DB instance. Performance Insights is a feature that allows you to analyze the load on your DB instance and determine what is causing performance issues. Performance Insights collects, analyzes, and displays database performance data using an interactive dashboard. You can use Performance Insights to identify the top SQL statements, hosts, users, or processes that are consuming the most CPU resources. You can also drill down into the details of each query and see the execution plan, wait events, locks, etc. By using Performance Insights, you can pinpoint the root cause of the high CPU utilization and optimize the queries accordingly. For example, you can rewrite the queries to make them more efficient, add or remove indexes, use prepared statements, etc.

Implementing caching to reduce the database query load will also help reduce the CPU utilization of the DB instance. Caching is a technique that allows you to store frequently accessed data in a fast and scalable storage layer, such as Amazon ElastiCache. By using caching, you can reduce the number of requests that hit your database, which in turn reduces the CPU load on your DB instance. Caching also improves the performance and availability of your application, as it reduces the latency and increases the throughput of your data access. You can use caching for various scenarios, such as storing session data, user preferences, application configuration, etc. You can also use caching for read-heavy workloads, such as displaying product details, recommendations, reviews, etc.

The other options are not as effective as using Performance Insights and caching. Modifying the database schema to include additional tables and indexes may or may not improve the CPU utilization, depending on the nature of the workload and the queries. Adding more tables and indexes may increase the complexity and overhead of the database, which may negatively affect the performance. Rebooting the RDS DB instance once each week will not reduce the CPU utilization, as it will not address the underlying cause of the high CPU load. Rebooting may also cause downtime and disruption to your application. Upgrading to a larger instance size may reduce the CPU utilization, but it will also increase the cost and complexity of your solution. Upgrading may also not be necessary if you can optimize the queries and reduce the database load by using caching. References:

Amazon RDS

Performance Insights

Amazon ElastiCache

[AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide], Chapter 3: Data Storage and Management, Section 3.1: Amazon RDS

AWS Glue is a fully managed serverless ETL service that can handle various data sources and formats, including .csv files in Amazon S3. AWS Glue provides two types of jobs: PySpark and Python shell. PySpark jobs use Apache Spark to process large-scale data in parallel, while Python shell jobs use Python scripts to process small-scale data in a single execution environment. For this requirement, a Python shell job is more suitable and cost-effective, as the size of each S3 object is less than 100 MB, which does not require distributed processing. A Python shell job can use pandas, a popular Python library for data analysis, to transform the .csv data as needed. The other solutions are not optimalor relevant for this requirement. Writing a custom Python application and hosting it on an Amazon EKS cluster would require more effort and resources to set up and manage the Kubernetes environment, as well as to handle the data ingestion and transformation logic. Writing a PySpark ETL script and hosting it on an Amazon EMR cluster would also incur more costs and complexity to provision and configure the EMR cluster, as well as to use Apache Spark for processing small data files. Writing an AWS Glue PySpark job would also be less efficient and economical than a Python shell job, as it would involve unnecessary overhead and charges for using Apache Spark for small data files. References:

AWS Glue

Working with Python Shell Jobs

pandas

[AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide]

Option B is the best solution to meet the requirements with the least operational overhead because S3 Object Lambda is a feature that allows you to add your own code to process data retrieved from S3 before returning it to an application. S3 Object Lambda works with S3 GET requests and can modify both the object metadata and the object data. By using S3 Object Lambda, you can implement redaction logic within an S3 Object Lambda function to dynamically redact PII based on the needs of each application that accesses the data. This way, you can avoid creating and maintaining multiple copies of the dataset with different levels of redaction.

Option A is not a good solution because it involves creating and managing multiple copies of the dataset with different levels of redaction for each application. This option adds complexity and storage cost to the data protection process and requires additional resources and configuration. Moreover, S3 bucket policies cannot enforce fine-grained data access control at the row and column level, so they are not sufficient to redact PII.

Option C is not a good solution because it involves using AWS Glue to transform the data for each application. AWS Glue is a fully managed service that can extract, transform, and load (ETL) data from various sources to various destinations, including S3. AWS Glue can also convert data to different formats, such as Parquet, which is a columnar storage format that is optimized for analytics. However, in this scenario, using AWS Glue to redact PII is not the best option because it requires creating and maintaining multiple copies of the dataset with different levels of redaction for each application. This option also adds extra time and cost to the data protection process and requires additional resources and configuration.

Option D is not a good solution because it involves creating and configuring an API Gateway endpoint that has custom authorizers. API Gateway is a service that allows youto create, publish, maintain, monitor, and secure APIs at any scale. API Gateway can also integrate with other AWS services, such as Lambda, to provide custom logic for processing requests. However, in this scenario, using API Gateway to redact PII is not the best option because it requires writing and maintaining custom code and configuration for the API endpoint, the custom authorizers, and the REST API call. This option also adds complexity and latency to the data protection process and requires additional resources and configuration.

Problem Analysis:

The company requires acentralized data warehousefor consolidating data from various sources.

They useAmazon QuickSight in direct query mode, necessitatingfast response timesfor analytical queries.

Users query the data intermittently, withunpredictable spikesduring the day.

Operational overhead should be minimal.

Key Considerations:

The solution must support fast, SQL-based analytics.

It must handle unpredictable spikes efficiently.

Must integrate seamlessly withQuickSightfor direct querying.

Minimize operational complexity and scaling concerns.

Solution Analysis:

Option A: Amazon Redshift Serverless

Redshift Serverless eliminates the need for provisioning and managing clusters.

Automatically scales compute capacity up or down based on query demand.

Reduces operational overhead by handling performance optimization.

Fully integrates withAmazon QuickSight, ensuring low-latency analytics.

Reduces costs as it charges only for usage, making it ideal for workloads with intermittent spikes.

Option B: Amazon Athena with S3 (Apache Parquet)

Athena supports querying data directly from S3 in Parquet format.

While it’s cost-effective, performance depends on the size and complexity of the data.

It is not optimized for high-speed analytics needed by QuickSight in direct query mode.

Option C: Amazon Redshift Provisioned Clusters

Requires manual cluster provisioning, scaling, and maintenance.

Higher operational overhead compared to Redshift Serverless.

Option D: Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL

Aurora is optimized for transactional databases, not data warehousing or analytics.

Does not meet the requirement for fast analytics queries.

Final Recommendation:

Amazon Redshift Serverlessis the best choice for this use case because it provides fast analytics, integrates natively with QuickSight, and minimizes operational complexity while efficiently handling unpredictable spikes.

To prevent unintentional file deletions and meet the requirement with minimal operational overhead, enablingS3 Versioningis the best solution.

S3 Versioning:

S3 Versioning allows multiple versions of an object to be stored in the same S3 bucket. When a file is deleted or overwritten, S3 preserves the previous versions, which means you canrecoverfrom accidental deletions or modifications.

Enabling versioning requires minimal overhead, as it is abucket-level settingand does not require additional backup processes or data replication.

Users can recover specific versions of files that were unintentionally deleted, meeting the needs of the data engineer to avoid accidental data loss.

Amazon Kinesis Data Streams is a service that enables you to collect, process, and analyze streaming data in real time. You can use Kinesis Data Streams to capture sensor data from various sources, such as IoT devices, web applications, or mobile apps. You can create data streams that can scale up to handle any amount of data from thousands of producers. You can also use the Kinesis Client Library (KCL) or the Kinesis Data Streams API to write applications that process and analyze the data in the streams1.

Amazon DynamoDB is a fully managed NoSQL database service that provides fast and predictable performance with seamless scalability. You can use DynamoDB to store the sensor data in nested JSON format, as DynamoDB supports document data types, such as lists and maps. You can also use DynamoDB to query the data with a latency of less than 10 milliseconds, as DynamoDB offers single-digit millisecond performance for any scale of data. You can use the DynamoDB API or the AWS SDKs to perform queries on the data, such as using key-value lookups, scans, or queries2.

The solution that meets the requirements with the least operational overhead is to use Amazon Kinesis Data Streams to capture the sensor data and store the data in Amazon DynamoDB for querying. This solution has the following advantages:

It does not require you to provision, manage, or scale any servers, clusters, or queues, as Kinesis Data Streams and DynamoDB are fully managed services that handle all the infrastructure for you. This reduces the operational complexity and cost of running your solution.

It allows you to ingest sensor data in near real time, as Kinesis Data Streams can capture data records as they are produced and deliver them to your applications within seconds. You can also use Kinesis Data Firehose to load the data from the streams to DynamoDB automatically and continuously3.

It allows you to store the data in nested JSON format, as DynamoDB supports document data types, such as lists and maps. You can also use DynamoDB Streams to capture changes in the data and trigger actions, such as sending notifications or updating other databases.

It allows you to query the data with a latency of less than 10 milliseconds, as DynamoDB offers single-digit millisecond performance for any scale of data. You can also use DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX) to improve the read performance by caching frequently accessed data.

Option A is incorrect because it suggests using a self-hosted Apache Kafka cluster to capture the sensor data and store the data in Amazon S3 for querying. This solution has the following disadvantages:

It requires you to provision, manage, and scale your own Kafka cluster, either on EC2 instances or on-premises servers. This increases the operational complexity and cost of running your solution.

It does not allow you to query the data with a latency of less than 10 milliseconds, as Amazon S3 is an object storage service that is not optimized for low-latency queries. You need to use another service, such as Amazon Athena or Amazon Redshift Spectrum, to query the data in S3, which may incur additional costs and latency.

Option B is incorrect because it suggests using AWS Lambda to process the sensor data and store the data in Amazon S3 for querying. This solution has the following disadvantages:

It does not allow you to ingest sensor data in near real time, as Lambda is a serverless compute service that runs code in response to events. You need to use another service, such as API Gateway or Kinesis Data Streams, to trigger Lambda functions with sensor data, which may add extra latency and complexity to your solution.

It does not allow you to query the data with a latency of less than 10 milliseconds, as Amazon S3 is an object storage service that is not optimized for low-latency queries. You need to use another service, such as Amazon Athena or Amazon Redshift Spectrum, to query the data in S3, which may incur additional costs and latency.

Option D is incorrect because it suggests using Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) to buffer incoming sensor data and use AWS Glue to store the data in Amazon RDS for querying. This solution has the following disadvantages:

It does not allow you to ingest sensor data in near real time, as Amazon SQS is a message queue service that delivers messages in a best-effort manner. You need to use another service, such as Lambda or EC2, to poll the messages from the queue and process them, which may add extra latency and complexity to your solution.

It does not allow you to store the data in nested JSON format, as Amazon RDS is a relational database service that supports structured data types, such as tables and columns. You need to use another service, such as AWS Glue, to transform the data from JSON to relational format, which may add extra cost and overhead to your solution.

The FLEX execution class allows you to run AWS Glue jobs on spare compute capacity instead of dedicated hardware. This can reduce the cost of running non-urgent or non-time sensitive data integration workloads, such as testing and one-time data loads. The FLEX execution class is available for AWS Glue 3.0 Spark jobs. The other options are not as cost-effective as FLEX, because they either use dedicated resources (STANDARD) or do not affect the cost at all (Spot Instance type and GlueVersion). References:

Introducing AWS Glue Flex jobs: Cost savings on ETL workloads

Serverless Data Integration – AWS Glue Pricing

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide (Chapter 5, page 125)

The problem described requires identifying matching records even when there is no unique identifier. AWS Lake FormationFindMatchesis designed for this purpose. It uses machine learning (ML) to deduplicate and find matching records in datasets that do not share a common identifier.

D. Train and use the AWS Lake Formation FindMatches transform in the ETL job:

FindMatchesis a transform available in AWS Lake Formation that uses ML to discover duplicate records or related records that might not have a common unique identifier.

It can be integrated into an AWS Glue ETL job to perform deduplication or matching tasks.

FindMatches is highly effective in scenarios where records do not share a key, such as customer records from different sources that need to be merged or reconciled.

Option A and B are the correct answers because they meet the requirements most cost-effectively. Using an AWS Lambda function and the Athena Boto3 client start_query_execution API call to invoke the Athena queries programmatically is a simple and scalable way to orchestrate the queries. Creating an AWS Step Functions workflow and adding two states to check the query status and invoke the next query is a reliable and efficient way to handle the long-running queries.

Option C is incorrect because using an AWS Glue Python shell job to invoke the Athena queries programmatically is more expensive than using a Lambda function, as it requires provisioning and running a Glue job for each query.

Option D is incorrect because using an AWS Glue Python shell script to run a sleep timer that checks every 5 minutes to determine whether the current Athena query has finished running successfully is not a cost-effective or reliable way to orchestrate the queries, as it wastes resources and time.

Option E is incorrect because using Amazon Managed Workflows for Apache Airflow (Amazon MWAA) to orchestrate the Athena queries in AWS Batch is an overkill solution that introduces unnecessary complexity and cost, as it requires setting up and managing an Airflow environment and an AWS Batch compute environment.

 Option C is the best solution to meet the requirements with the least effort because server-side encryption with AWS KMS keys (SSE-KMS) is a feature that allows you toencrypt data at rest in Amazon S3 using keys managed by AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS). AWS KMS is a fully managed service that enables you to create and manage encryption keys for your AWS services and applications. AWS KMS also allows you to define granular access policies for your keys, such as who can use them to encrypt and decrypt data, and under what conditions. By using SSE-KMS, you can protect your S3 objects by using encryption keys that only specific employees can access, without having to manage the encryption and decryption process yourself.

Option A is not a good solution because it involves using AWS CloudHSM, which is a service that provides hardware security modules (HSMs) in the AWS Cloud. AWS CloudHSM allows you to generate and use your own encryption keys on dedicated hardware that is compliant with various standards and regulations. However, AWS CloudHSM is not a fully managed service and requires more effort to set up and maintain than AWS KMS. Moreover, AWS CloudHSM does not integrate with Amazon S3, so you have to configure the process that writes to S3 to make calls to CloudHSM to encrypt and decrypt the objects, which adds complexity and latency to the data protection process.

Option B is not a good solution because it involves using server-side encryption with customer-provided keys (SSE-C), which is a feature that allows you to encrypt data at rest in Amazon S3 using keys that you provide and manage yourself. SSE-C requires you to send your encryption key along with each request to upload or retrieve an object. However, SSE-C does not provide any mechanism to restrict access to the keys that encrypt the objects, so you have to implement your own key management and access control system, which adds more effort and risk to the data protection process.

Option D is not a good solution because it involves using server-side encryption with Amazon S3 managed keys (SSE-S3), which is a feature that allows you to encrypt data at rest in Amazon S3 using keys that are managed by Amazon S3. SSE-S3 automatically encrypts and decrypts your objects as they are uploaded and downloaded from S3. However, SSE-S3 does not allow you to control who can access the encryption keys or under what conditions. SSE-S3 uses a single encryption key for each S3 bucket, which is shared by all users who have access to the bucket. This means that you cannot restrict access to the keys that encrypt the objects by specific employees, which does not meet the requirements.

In Amazon Redshift, theSUPERdata type is designed specifically to handle semi-structured data like JSON, Parquet, ORC, and others. By using the SUPER data type, Redshift can ingest and query JSON data without requiring complex data flattening processes, thus reducing the amount of preprocessing required before loading the data. TheSUPERdata type also works seamlessly withRedshift Spectrum, enabling complex queries that can combine both structured and semi-structured datasets, which aligns with the company’s need to use combined datasets to identify potential new customers.

Using the SUPER data type also allows forautomatic parsing and query processingof nested data structures through Amazon Redshift'sPARTITION BYandJSONPATH expressions, which makes this option the most efficient approach with the least effort involved. This reduces the overhead associated with using tools like AWS Glue or Lambda for data transformation.

Athena data source is a solution that allows you to use Spark to access Athena by using the Athena JDBC driver and the Spark SQL interface. You can use the Athena data source to create Spark DataFrames from Athena tables, run SQL queries on the DataFrames, and write the results back to Athena. The Athena data source supports various data formats, such as CSV, JSON, ORC, and Parquet, and also supports partitioned and bucketed tables. The Athena data source is a cost-effective and scalable way to use Spark to access Athena, as it does not require any additional infrastructure or services, and you only pay for the data scanned by Athena.

The other options are not solutions that give the company the ability to use Spark to access Athena. Option A, Athena query settings, is a feature that allows you to configure various parameters for your Athena queries, such as the output location, the encryption settings, the query timeout, and the workgroup. Option B, Athena workgroup, is a feature that allows you to isolate and manage your Athena queries and resources, such as the query history, the query notifications, the query concurrency, and the query cost. Option D, Athena query editor, is a feature that allows you to write and run SQL queries on Athena using the web console or the API. None of these options enable you to use Spark instead of SQL to generate analytics on Athena. References:

Using Apache Spark in Amazon Athena

Athena JDBC Driver

Spark SQL

Athena query settings

[Athena workgroups]

[Athena query editor]

The correct answer is to configure AWS Glue triggers to run the ETL jobs every hour and use AWS Glue connections to establish connectivity between the data sources and Amazon Redshift. AWS Glue triggers are a way to schedule and orchestrate ETL jobs with the least operational overhead. AWS Glue connections are a way to securely connect to data sources and targets using JDBC or MongoDB drivers. AWS Glue DataBrew is a visual data preparation tool that does not support MongoDB as a data source. AWS Lambda functions are a serverless option to schedule and run ETL jobs, but they have a limit of 15 minutes for execution time, which may not be enough for complex transformations. The Redshift Data API is a way to run SQL commands on Amazon Redshift clusters without needing a persistent connection, but it does not support loading data from AWS Glue ETL jobs. References:

AWS Glue triggers

AWS Glue connections

AWS Glue DataBrew

[AWS Lambda functions]

[Redshift Data API]

Amazon Athena is a serverless interactive query service that allows you to analyze data in Amazon S3 using standard SQL. Athena supports various data formats, such as CSV, JSON, ORC, Avro, and Parquet. However, not all data formats are equally efficient for querying. Some data formats, such as CSV and JSON, are row-oriented, meaning that they store data as a sequence of records, each with the same fields. Row-oriented formats are suitable for loading and exporting data, but they are not optimal for analytical queries that often access only a subset of columns. Row-oriented formats also do not support compression or encoding techniques that can reduce the data size and improve the query performance.

On the other hand, some data formats, such as ORC and Parquet, are column-oriented, meaning that they store data as a collection of columns, each with a specific data type. Column-oriented formats are ideal for analytical queries that often filter, aggregate, or join data by columns. Column-oriented formats also support compression and encoding techniques that can reduce the data size and improve the query performance. For example, Parquet supports dictionary encoding, which replaces repeated values with numeric codes, and run-length encoding, which replaces consecutive identical values with a single value and a count. Parquet also supports various compression algorithms, such as Snappy, GZIP, and ZSTD, that can further reduce the data size and improve the query performance.

Therefore, creating an AWS Glue extract, transform, and load (ETL) job to read from the .csv structured data source and writing the data into the data lake in Apache Parquet format will meet the requirements most cost-effectively. AWS Glue is a fully managed service that provides a serverless data integration platform for data preparation, data cataloging, and data loading. AWS Glue ETL jobs allow you to transform and load data from various sources into various targets, using either a graphical interface (AWS Glue Studio) or a code-based interface (AWS Glue console or AWS Glue API). By using AWS Glue ETL jobs, you can easily convert the data from CSV to Parquet format, without having to write or manage any code. Parquet is a column-oriented format that allows Athena to scan only the relevant columns and skip the rest, reducing the amount of data read from S3. This solution will also reduce the cost of Athena queries, as Athena charges based on the amount of data scanned from S3.

The other options are not as cost-effective as creating an AWS Glue ETL job to write the data into the data lake in Parquet format. Using an AWS Glue PySpark job to ingest the source data into the data lake in .csv format will not improve the query performance or reduce the query cost, as .csv is a row-oriented format that does not support columnar access or compression. Creating an AWS Glue ETL job to ingest the data into the data lake in JSON format will not improve the query performance or reduce the query cost, as JSON is also a row-oriented format that does not support columnar access orcompression. Using an AWS Glue PySpark job to ingest the source data into the data lake in Apache Avro format will improve the query performance, as Avro is a column-oriented format that supports compression and encoding, but it will require more operational effort, as you will need to write and maintain PySpark code to convert the data from CSV to Avro format. References:

Amazon Athena

Choosing the Right Data Format

AWS Glue

[AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide], Chapter 5: Data Analysis and Visualization, Section 5.1: Amazon Athena

According to the guide:

“For integrating streaming data from Amazon MSK into Amazon Redshift efficiently and cost-effectively, AWS Glue streaming jobs can process and transform the data, storing it in Amazon S3. Amazon Redshift Spectrum can then directly query the data from S3, minimizing operational overhead and reducing storage costs.”

–Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

This setup offers:

Low latencyvia Glue streaming.

Low storage costby using Parquet/ORC on S3.

Minimal operational overheadby avoiding complex pipelines or constantly updated materialized views.

To improve data encoding for Amazon Redshift tables where sub-optimal encoding has been applied, the correct approach is to analyze the table to determine the optimal encoding based on the data distribution and characteristics.

Option B: Run the ANALYZE COMPRESSION command against the identified tables. Manually update the compression encoding of columns based on the output of the command.TheANALYZE COMPRESSIONcommand in Amazon Redshift analyzes the columnar data and suggests the best compression encoding for each column. The output provides recommendations for changing the current encoding to improve storage efficiency and query performance. After analyzing, you can manually apply the recommended encoding to the columns.

Option A(ANALYZE command) is incorrect because it is primarily used to update statistics on tables, not to analyze or suggest compression encoding.

Options C and D(VACUUM commands) deal with reclaiming disk space and reorganizing data, not optimizing compression encoding.

Problem Analysis:

The company processes2 GB of daily sales recordsand100 GB of Salesforce sales opportunities.

The goal is to analyze and correlate the two datasets withlow operational overhead.

The process must runonce nightly.

Key Considerations:

Amazon AppFlowsimplifies data integration with Salesforce.

AWS Gluecan extract data from MySQL and perform ETL operations.

Step Functionscan orchestrate workflows with minimal manual intervention.

Apache Airflow and Flink add complexity, which conflicts with the requirement for low operational overhead.

Solution Analysis:

Option A: MWAA + Lambda + Step Functions

Requires custom Lambda code for dataset correlation, increasing development and operational complexity.

Option B: AppFlow + Glue + MWAA

MWAA adds orchestration overhead compared to the simpler Step Functions.

Option C: AppFlow + Glue + Step Functions

AppFlow fetches Salesforce data, Glue extracts MySQL data, and Step Functions orchestrate the entire process.

Minimal setup and operational overhead, making it the best choice.

Option D: AppFlow + Kinesis + Flink + Step Functions

Using Kinesis and Flink for batch processing introduces unnecessary complexity.

Final Recommendation:

UseAmazon AppFlowto fetch Salesforce data,AWS Glueto process MySQL data, andStep Functionsfor orchestration.

The best solution to cost optimize the company’s use of Amazon Athena without adding any additional infrastructure costs is to use the query result reuse feature of Amazon Athena for the SQL queries. This feature allows you to run the same query multiple times without incurring additional charges, as long as the underlying data has not changed and the query results are still in the query result location in Amazon S31. This feature is useful for scenarios where you have a petabyte-scale dataset that is updated infrequently, such as once a day, and you have a BI application that runs the same queries repeatedly, such as every hour. By using the query result reuse feature, you can reduce the amount of data scanned by your queries and save on the cost of running Athena. You can enable or disable this feature at the workgroup level or at the individual query level1.

Option A is not the best solution, as configuring an Amazon S3 Lifecycle policy to move data to the S3 Glacier Deep Archive storage class after 1 day would not cost optimize the company’s use of Amazon Athena, but rather increase the cost and complexity. Amazon S3 Lifecycle policies are rules that you can define to automatically transition objects between different storage classes based on specified criteria, such as the age of the object2. S3 Glacier Deep Archive is the lowest-cost storage class in Amazon S3, designed for long-term data archiving that is accessed once or twice in a year3. While moving data to S3 Glacier Deep Archive can reduce the storage cost, it would also increase the retrieval cost and latency, as it takes up to 12 hours to restore the data from S3 Glacier Deep Archive3. Moreover, Athena does not support querying data that is in S3 Glacier or S3 Glacier Deep Archive storage classes4. Therefore, using this option would not meet the requirements of running on-demand SQL queries on the dataset.

Option C is not the best solution, as adding an Amazon ElastiCache cluster between the BI application and Athena would not cost optimize the company’s use of Amazon Athena, but rather increase the cost and complexity. Amazon ElastiCache is a service that offers fully managed in-memory data stores, such as Redis and Memcached, that can improve the performance and scalability of web applications by caching frequently accessed data. While using ElastiCache can reduce the latency and load on the BI application, it would not reduce the amount of data scanned by Athena, which is the main factor that determines the cost of running Athena. Moreover, using ElastiCachewould introduce additional infrastructure costs and operational overhead, as you would have to provision, manage, and scale the ElastiCache cluster, and integrate it with the BI application and Athena.

Option D is not the best solution, as changing the format of the files that are in the dataset to Apache Parquet would not cost optimize the company’s use of Amazon Athena without adding any additional infrastructure costs, but rather increase the complexity. Apache Parquet is a columnar storage format that can improve the performance of analytical queries by reducing the amount of data that needs to be scanned and providing efficient compression and encoding schemes. However, changing the format of the files that are in the dataset to Apache Parquet would require additional processing and transformation steps, such as using AWS Glue or Amazon EMR to convert the files from their original format to Parquet, and storing the converted files in a separate location in Amazon S3. This would increase the complexity and the operational overhead of the data pipeline, and also incur additional costs for using AWS Glue or Amazon EMR. References:

Query result reuse

Amazon S3 Lifecycle

S3 Glacier Deep Archive

Storage classes supported by Athena

[What is Amazon ElastiCache?]

[Amazon Athena pricing]

[Columnar Storage Formats]

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide