AWS Certified Associate Data-Engineer-Associate Updated Exam

 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.

References:

1: Choosing the right DynamoDB capacity mode - Amazon DynamoDB

2: Managing throughput capacity automatically with DynamoDB auto scaling - Amazon DynamoDB

3: Best practices for designing and using partition keys effectively - Amazon DynamoDB

[4]: On-demand mode guidelines - Amazon DynamoDB

[5]: How to optimize Amazon DynamoDB costs - AWS Database Blog

[6]: DynamoDB adaptive capacity: How it works and how it helps - AWS Database Blog

[7]: Amazon DynamoDB pricing - Amazon Web Services (AWS)

The problem described requires identifying matching records even when there is no unique identifier. AWS Lake Formation FindMatches is 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:

FindMatches is 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.

Amazon Redshift is a fully managed, petabyte-scale data warehouse service that enables fast and cost-effective analysis of large volumes of data. Amazon Redshift uses columnar storage, compression, and zone maps to optimize the storage and performance of data. However, over time, as data is inserted, updated, or deleted, the physical storage of data can become fragmented, resulting in wasted disk space and degraded query performance. To address this issue, Amazon Redshift provides the VACUUM command, which reclaims disk space and resorts rows in either a specified table or all tables in the current schema1.

The VACUUM command has four options: FULL, DELETE ONLY, SORT ONLY, and REINDEX. The option that best meets the requirements of the question is VACUUM REINDEX, which re-sorts the rows in a table that has an interleaved sort key and rewrites the table to a new location on disk. An interleaved sort key is a type of sort key that gives equal weight to each column in the sort key, and stores the rows in a way that optimizes the performance of queries that filter by multiple columns in the sort key. However, as data is added or changed, the interleaved sort order can become skewed, resulting in suboptimal query performance. The VACUUM REINDEX option restores the optimal interleaved sort order and reclaims disk space by removing deleted rows. This option also analyzes the sort key column and updates the table statistics, which are used by the query optimizer to generate the most efficient query execution plan23.

The other options are not optimal for the following reasons:

A. VACUUM FULL Orders. This option reclaims disk space by removing deleted rows and resorts the entire table. However, this option is not suitable for tables that have an interleaved sort key, as it does not restore the optimal interleaved sort order. Moreover, this option is the most resource-intensive and time-consuming, as it rewrites the entire table to a new location on disk.

B. VACUUM DELETE ONLY Orders. This option reclaims disk space by removing deleted rows, but does not resort the table. This option is not suitable for tables that have any sort key, as it does not improve the query performance by restoring the sort order. Moreover, this option does not analyze the sort key column and update the table statistics.

D. VACUUM SORT ONLY Orders. This option resorts the entire table, but does not reclaim disk space by removing deleted rows. This option is not suitable for tables that have an interleaved sort key, as it does not restore the optimal interleaved sort order. Moreover, this option does not analyze the sort key column and update the table statistics.

References:

1: Amazon Redshift VACUUM

2: Amazon Redshift Interleaved Sorting

3: Amazon Redshift ANALYZE

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 Redshift Spectrum 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]