Data-Engineer-Associate Exam Dumps - AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate (DEA-C01)

 An open source data lake format, such as Apache Parquet, Apache ORC, or Delta Lake, is a cost-effective way to perform a change data capture (CDC) operation on semi-structured data stored in Amazon S3. An open source data lake format allows you to query data directly from S3 using standard SQL, without the need to move or copy data to another service. An open source data lake format also supports schema evolution, meaning it can handle changes in the data structure over time. An open source data lake format also supports upserts, meaning it can insert new data and update existing datain the same operation, using a merge command. This way, you can efficiently capture the changes from the data source and apply them to the S3 data lake, without duplicating or losing any data.

The other options are not as cost-effective as using an open source data lake format, as they involve additional steps or costs. Option A requires you to create and maintain an AWS Lambda function, which can be complex and error-prone. AWS Lambda also has some limits on the execution time, memory, and concurrency, which can affect the performance and reliability of the CDC operation. Option B and D require you to ingest the data into a relational database service, such as Amazon RDS or Amazon Aurora, which can be expensive and unnecessary for semi-structured data. AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) can write the changed data to the data lake, but it also charges you for the data replication and transfer. Additionally, AWS DMS does not support JSON as a source data type, so you would need to convert the data to a supported format before using AWS DMS. References:

What is a data lake?

Choosing a data format for your data lake

Using the MERGE INTO command in Delta Lake

[AWS Lambda quotas]

[AWS Database Migration Service quotas]

The problem likely arises from Athena not being able to read from the correct S3 location or missing partitions. The two most relevant troubleshooting steps involve checking the S3 location and repairing the table metadata.

A. Confirm that Athena is pointing to the correct Amazon S3 location:

One of the most common issues with missing data in Athena queries is that the query is pointed to an incorrect or outdated S3 location. Checking the S3 path ensures Athena is querying the correct data.

Amazon Athena is a serverless, interactive query service that enables you to analyze data in Amazon S3 using standard SQL. AWS Lake Formation is a service that helps you build, secure, and manage data lakes on AWS. You can use AWS Lake Formation to create data filters that define the level of access for different IAM roles based on the columns, rows, or tags of the data. By using Amazon Athena to query the data and AWS Lake Formation to create data filters, the company can meet the requirements of ensuring that user groups can access only the PII that they require with the least effort. The solution is to use Amazon Athena to query the data in the data lake that is in Amazon S3. Then, set up AWS Lake Formation and create data filters to establish levels of access for the company’s IAM roles. For example, a data filter can allow a user group to access only the columns that contain the PII that they need, such as name and email address, and deny access to the columns that contain the PII that they do not need, such as phone number and social security number. Finally, assign each user to the IAM role that matches the user’s PII access requirements. This way, the user groups can access the data in the data lake securely and efficiently. The other options are either not feasible or not optimal. Using Amazon QuickSight to access the data (option B) would require the company to pay for the QuickSight service and to configure the column-level security features for each user. Building a custom query builder UI that will run Athena queries in the background to access the data (option C) would require the company to develop and maintain the UI and to integrate it with Amazon Cognito. Creating IAM roles that have different levels of granular access (option D) would require the company to manage multiple IAM roles and policies and to ensure that they are aligned with the data schema. References:

Amazon Athena

AWS Lake Formation

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide, Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Visualization, Section 4.3: Amazon Athena

AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) is a service that helps you migrate databases to AWS quickly and securely. You can use AWS DMS to migrate the Hive metastore from the on-premises Hadoop clusters into Amazon S3, which is a highly scalable, durable, and cost-effective object storage service. AWS Glue Data Catalog is a serverless, managed service that acts as a central metadata repository for your data assets. You can use AWS Glue Data Catalog to scan the Amazon S3 bucket that contains the migrated Hive metastore and create a data catalog that is compatible with Apache Hive and other AWS services. This solution meets the requirements of migrating the data catalog into a persistent storage solution and using a serverless solution. This solution is also the most cost-effective, as it does not incur any additional charges for running Amazon EMR or Amazon Aurora MySQL clusters. The other options are either not feasible or not optimal. Configuring a Hive metastore in Amazon EMR (option B) or an external Hive metastore in Amazon EMR (option C) would require running and maintaining Amazon EMR clusters, which would incur additional costs and complexity. Using Amazon Aurora MySQL to store the company’s data catalog (option C) would also incur additional costs and complexity, as well as introduce compatibility issues with Apache Hive. Configuring a new Hive metastore in Amazon EMR (option D) would not migrate the existing data catalog, but create a new one, which would result in data loss and inconsistency. References:

Using AWS Database Migration Service

Populating the AWS Glue Data Catalog

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide, Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Visualization, Section 4.2: AWS Glue Data Catalog

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.

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]

The most cost-effective solution in this case is to apply a lifecycle policy to transition records to Amazon S3 Standard-IA storage after 30 days. Here’s why:

Amazon S3 Lifecycle Policies: Amazon S3 offers lifecycle policies that allow you to automatically transition objects between different storage classes to optimize costs. For data that is frequently accessed in the first 30 days and infrequently accessed after that, transitioning from theS3 Standard storage class to S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA)after 30 days makes the most sense. S3 Standard-IA is designed for data that is accessed less frequently but stillneeds to be retained, offering lower storage costs than S3 Standard with a retrieval cost for access.

Cost Optimization: S3 Standard-IA offers a lower price per GB than S3 Standard. Since the data will be accessed infrequently after 30 days, using S3 Standard-IA will lower storage costs while still allowing for immediate retrieval when necessary.

Compliance with Regulations: Since the records need to be immediately accessible for the first 30 days, the use ofS3 Standardfor that period ensures compliance with regulatory requirements. After 30 days, transitioning toS3 Standard-IAcontinues to meet access requirements for infrequent access while reducing storage costs.

Alternatives Considered:

Option B (S3 Intelligent-Tiering): While S3 Intelligent-Tiering automatically moves data between access tiers based on access patterns, it incurs a small monthly monitoring and automation charge per object. It could be a viable option, but transitioning data toS3 Standard-IAdirectly would be more cost-effective since the pattern of access is well-known (frequent for 30 days, infrequent thereafter).

Option C (S3 Glacier Deep Archive): Glacier Deep Archive is the lowest-cost storage class, but it is not suitable in this case because the data needs to be accessed immediately within 30 days and on an infrequent basis thereafter. Glacier Deep Archive requires hours for data retrieval, which is not acceptable for infrequent access needs.

Option D (S3 Standard-IA for all records): UsingS3 Standard-IA for all recordswould result in higher costs for the first 30 days, as the data is frequently accessed. S3 Standard-IA incurs retrieval charges, making it less suitable for frequently accessed data.

 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.