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

Option D is correct because Amazon Redshift stored procedures are designed to encapsulate a sequence of SQL statements and business logic inside the database. AWS documentation states that stored procedures are commonly used for data transformation, data validation, and business-specific logic, and that they can combine multiple SQL steps into one procedure. AWS also documents the standard Redshift pattern for deleting stale rows and inserting fresh rows from a staging table, which is exactly the requirement here. Keeping the operation inside Redshift is the most direct way to maintain an up-to-date orders table for downstream consumers.

Option A is incorrect because Redshift Spectrum is for querying external data in S3, not for performing this in-place Redshift table-maintenance pattern. Option B adds unnecessary unload and reload steps, creating delay and operational complexity. Option C is also unsuitable because Athena federated queries are not the right mechanism for transactional maintenance of Redshift tables. The correct DEA-C01-style answer is to use Redshift-native procedural SQL to delete stale rows and insert current rows from staging.

 Amazon Redshift Serverless is a new feature of Amazon Redshift that enables you to run SQL queries on data in Amazon S3 without provisioning or managing any clusters. You can use Amazon Redshift Serverless to automatically process the analytics workload, as it scales up and down the compute resources based on the query demand, and charges you only for the resources consumed. This solution will meet the requirements with the least operational overhead, as it does not require the data engineer to create, delete, pause, or resume any Redshift clusters, or to manage any infrastructure manually. You can use the Amazon Redshift Data API to run queries from the AWS CLI, AWS SDK, or AWS Lambda functions12.

The other options are not optimal for the following reasons:

A. Use Amazon Step Functions to pause the Redshift cluster when the analytics processes are complete and to resume the cluster to run new processes every month. This option is not recommended, as it would still require the data engineer to create and delete a new Redshift provisioned cluster every month, which can incur additional costs and time. Moreover, this option would require the data engineer to use Amazon Step Functions to orchestrate the workflow of pausing and resuming the cluster, which can add complexity and overhead.

C. Use the AWS CLI to automatically process the analytics workload. This option is vague and does not specify how the AWS CLI is used to process the analytics workload. The AWS CLI can be used to run queries on data in Amazon S3 using Amazon Redshift Serverless, Amazon Athena, or Amazon EMR, but each of these services has different features and benefits. Moreover, this option does not address the requirement of not managing the infrastructure manually, as the data engineer may still need to provision and configure some resources, such as Amazon EMR clusters or Amazon Athena workgroups.

D. Use AWS CloudFormation templates to automatically process the analytics workload. This option is also vague and does not specify how AWS CloudFormation templates are used to process the analytics workload. AWS CloudFormation is a service that lets you model and provision AWS resources using templates. You can use AWS CloudFormation templates to create and delete a Redshift provisioned cluster every month, or to create and configure other AWS resources, such as Amazon EMR, Amazon Athena, or Amazon Redshift Serverless. However, this option does not address the requirement of not managing the infrastructure manually, as the data engineer may still need to write and maintain the AWS CloudFormation templates, and to monitor the status and performance of the resources.

1: Amazon Redshift Serverless

2: Amazon Redshift Data API

Amazon Step Functions

AWS CLI

AWS CloudFormation

Option C is correct because the main performance problem here is the large number of very small files. AWS Glue documentation explains that for Apache Iceberg tables, managed compaction reduces metadata overhead and improves read performance by compacting many small objects into larger ones. AWS Glue also provides table optimizers for Iceberg, and compaction can be configured to run automatically. This directly addresses the requirement that performance should not degrade as more files are added over time.

Option A could help somewhat, but it adds more operational work and the crawler step is unnecessary noise for this question. With Iceberg tables in the Glue Data Catalog, the better answer is the native automatic compaction capability rather than a manually scheduled Glue job. Option B is incorrect because the Data Catalog does not simply compact files “every minute” by default; compaction is enabled and configured through the Iceberg table optimizer settings. Option D is insufficient because partitioning alone does not solve the small-files problem, and frequent crawler runs do not prevent long-term Iceberg degradation. The AWS-native, least-operations answer is to enable automatic compaction based on thresholds.

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

AWS Direct Connect:

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

Amazon S3 Intelligent-Tiering is designed to optimize storage costs by automatically moving objects between access tiers based on access patterns. Since Apache Iceberg works with S3 storage, using Intelligent-Tiering provides cost-efficiency without the need for custom development or jobs.

Option B improves performance but doesn ' t optimize cost automatically.

Option C is not a real AWS Glue feature – Glue does not automatically optimize Iceberg storage.

Option D requires custom development effort, which is contrary to the requirement.

“S3 Intelligent-Tiering is ideal for data lakes and analytics use cases that access data irregularly.”

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]

Option D is correct because domain units in Amazon SageMaker Unified Studio are specifically designed to organize assets and other domain entities by business unit or team, while also enabling delegated authority to domain unit owners for authorization and governance. AWS states that domain units let selected users within each business unit log in and share assets to the catalog, and that users elsewhere in the enterprise can discover those assets and request access. This directly matches the requirement for isolated control with controlled cross-business-unit sharing upon approval. AWS also documents that Unified Studio supports authentication through AWS IAM Identity Center, which satisfies the need for centralized authentication and identity mapping.

Option A is incorrect because API keys are not the correct authentication model for Unified Studio portal access; AWS documents IAM Identity Center and related identity-provider-based sign-in instead. Option B is wrong because it prevents the required approved sharing. Option C is less suitable because the requirement is to isolate business units within a domain while still enabling governed sharing; separate domains would add more separation than needed and complicate sharing. Therefore, one domain with separate domain units, IAM Identity Center, and access-request-based sharing is the best fit.