Amazon Web Services Data-Engineer-Associate Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Option C is correct because the required access pattern is: find all completed rides for a specific driver. In DynamoDB, when you need to query data efficiently by attributes that are not part of the base table primary key, you typically create a global secondary index (GSI). AWS documentation states that a GSI can have a key schema that is different from the base table and can use top-level attributes such as DriverID and RideStatus as its partition and sort keys. That makes it possible to query directly for a given driver and then narrow the results to completed rides, without scanning the full table.

Option A is incorrect because a local secondary index (LSI) must use the same partition key as the base table. Since the table partition key is RideID, an LSI cannot be created with DriverID as the partitioning access path.

Option B uses RiderID, which does not satisfy the requirement to retrieve rides by driver. Option D is also wrong because filter expressions are applied after items are read and therefore do not avoid scanning large amounts of data. The study guide emphasizes choosing the correct data model and access pattern for the workload, which places this question in the Data Storage and Management domain.

Option B best meets a highly resilient DR requirement with an RTO under 1 hour because a Multi-AZ deployment is designed to provide rapid recovery through redundancy across Availability Zones, rather than requiring a restore-and-rebuild process after a failure. A snapshot-based strategy (Option C) can be valuable for backup and regional recovery, but restoring a new cluster from snapshots is a heavier operation and is not the most reliable path to consistently achieving sub-hour RTO during real incidents. The study material highlights snapshot/restore as an operational mechanism for creating a new environment from a Redshift cluster’s saved state, which inherently implies a restore process and associated time to bring resources online.

Option D (cluster relocation) is primarily an operational move mechanism and is not the same as maintaining continuously resilient capacity for unplanned AZ-impacting events. Option A is not the best choice because Multi-AZ resiliency is aligned with modern Redshift architectures, and RA3 is the recommended node family for contemporary Redshift deployments where performance and managed storage characteristics are key for enterprise analytics. The study material reinforces Amazon Redshift as the platform for high-performance enterprise analytics, so a resilience-first configuration is appropriate.

Option D is correct because Aurora zero-ETL integration with Amazon Redshift is the AWS-managed feature built specifically to make transactional Aurora data available in Amazon Redshift Serverless in near real time. AWS documents that Aurora zero-ETL is a fully managed solution that makes transactional data available in the analytics destination after it is written to the Aurora cluster, eliminating the need to build and maintain complex ETL pipelines. AWS also states that Redshift zero-ETL supports a target data warehouse that can be a Redshift Serverless workgroup, which directly matches the question.

Option A and C add more operational components, such as DMS tasks, replication design, schema handling, and additional streaming infrastructure. Option B is also more operationally heavy because MSK Connect with Debezium requires Kafka-based CDC infrastructure and connector management. Since the requirement emphasizes serverless, near real-time analytics, and least operational overhead, the native zero-ETL integration is the best fit. This also aligns with the study guide’s focus on choosing AWS services that minimize management effort while supporting ingestion and analytics workflows.