Free Practice Questions for Amazon Web Services Data-Engineer-Associate Exam

Redshift data sharing is a feature that enables you to share live data across different Redshift clusters without the need to copy or move data. Data sharing provides secure and governed access to data, while preserving the performance and concurrency benefits of Redshift. By setting up the sales team BI cluster as a consumer of the ETL cluster, the company can share the ETL cluster data with the sales team without interrupting the critical analysis tasks. The solution also minimizes the usage of the computing resources of the ETL cluster, as the data sharing does not consume any storage space or compute resources from the producer cluster. The other options are either not feasible or not efficient. Creating materialized views or database views would require the sales team to have direct access to the ETL cluster, which could interfere with the critical analysis tasks. Unloading a copy of the data from the ETL cluster to an Amazon S3 bucket every week would introduce additional latency and cost, as well as create data inconsistency issues. References:

Sharing data across Amazon Redshift clusters

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide, Chapter 2: Data Store Management, Section 2.2: Amazon Redshift

To migrate data from an Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL DB instance in theeu-east-1Region (Account_A) to an Amazon Redshift cluster in theeu-west-1Region (Account_B), AWS DMS needs a replication instance located in the target region (in this case,eu-west-1) to facilitate the data transfer between regions.

Option A: Set up an AWS DMS replication instance in Account_B in eu-west-1.Placing theDMS replication instancein the target account and region (Account_B in eu-west-1) is the most efficient solution. The replication instance can connect to the source RDS PostgreSQL in eu-east-1 and migrate the data tothe Redshift cluster in eu-west-1. This setup ensures data is replicated across AWS accounts and regions.

Options B, C, and D place the replication instance in either the wrong account or region, which increases complexity without adding any benefit.

Reserved concurrencyallows you to dedicate a portion of your account’s available concurrency to aspecific Lambda function. This ensures that the function always has sufficient capacity, regardless of how many other functions are running. It's more cost-effective than provisioned concurrency, which reserves warm environments at a higher cost.

“You can use reserved concurrency to guarantee that your critical Lambda functions have the capacity to run as needed without being throttled by other functions.”

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

Provisioned concurrency would be overkill unless latency is also a concern for cold starts, which isn’t stated in this case.

Step 1: Understand the Data Access Requirements

The question presents distinct access needs for three teams:

Marketing team: Needs full access to customer contact info but only obfuscated claim information.

Claims team: Needs access to customer information relevant to the claims they process.

Analytics team: Needs only obfuscated PII data.

These teams require different levels of access, and the solution needs to enforce data security while keeping administrative overhead low.

Step 2: Why Option B is Correct

Option B (Creating Views) is a common best practice in Amazon Redshift to restrict access to specific data without duplicating data or managing multiple clusters. By creating views:

You can define customized views of the data with obfuscated fields for the analytics team and marketing team while still providing full access where necessary.

Views provide a logical separation of data and allow Redshift administrators to grant access permissions based on roles or groups, ensuring that each team sees only what they are allowed to.

Obfuscation or masking of PII can be easily applied to the views by transforming or hiding sensitive data fields.

This approach avoids the complexity of managing multiple Redshift clusters or S3-based data lakes, which introduces higher operational and administrative overhead.

Step 3: Why Other Options Are Not Ideal

Option A (Separate Redshift Clusters) introduces unnecessary administrative overhead by managing multiple clusters. Maintaining several clusters for each team is costly, redundant, and inefficient.

Option C (Separate Redshift Roles) involves creating multiple roles and managing complex masking policies, which adds to administrative burden and complexity. While Redshift does support column-level access control, it's still more overhead than managing simple views.

Option D (Move to S3 and Lake Formation) is a more complex and heavy-handed solution, especially when the data is already stored in Redshift. Migrating the data to S3 and setting up a data lake with Lake Formation introduces significant operational complexity that isn't needed for this specific requirement.

Conclusion:

Creating views in Amazon Redshift allows for flexible, fine-grained access control with minimal overhead, making it the optimal solution to meet the data access requirements of the marketing, claims, and analytics teams.

Explanation: Amazon Macie is a fully managed data security and privacy service that uses machine learning to automatically discover, classify, and protect sensitive data in AWS, such as PII. By configuring Macie for automated sensitive data discovery, the company can minimize manual intervention while ensuring PII is identified before data is shared.

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.

 A data mesh is an architectural framework that organizes data into domains and treats data as products that are owned and offered for consumption by different teams1. A data mesh requires a centralized layer for data governance and access control, as well as a distributed layer for data storage and analysis. AWS Glue can provide data catalogs and ETL operations for the data mesh, but it cannot provide data governance and access control by itself2. Therefore, the company needs to use another AWS service for this purpose. AWS Lake Formation is a service that allows you to create, secure, and manage data lakes on AWS3. It integrates with AWS Glue and other AWS services to provide centralized data governance and access control for the data mesh. Therefore, option E is correct.

For data storage and analysis, the company can choose from different AWS services depending on their needs and preferences. However, one of the benefits of a data mesh is that it enables data to be stored and processed in a decoupled and scalable way1. Therefore, using serverless or managed services that can handle large volumes and varieties of data is preferable. Amazon S3 is a highly scalable, durable, and secure object storage service that can store any type of data. Amazon Athena is a serverless interactive query service that can analyze data in Amazon S3 using standard SQL. Therefore, option B is a good choice for data storage and analysis in a data mesh. Option A, C, and D are not optimal because they either use relational databases that are not suitable for storing diverse and unstructured data, or they require more management and provisioning than serverless services. References:

1: What is a Data Mesh? - Data Mesh Architecture Explained - AWS

2: AWS Glue - Developer Guide

3: AWS Lake Formation - Features

[4]: Design a data mesh architecture using AWS Lake Formation and AWS Glue

[5]: Amazon S3 - Features

[6]: Amazon Athena - Features

AWS Lake Formation is a service that helps you build, secure, and manage data lakes on Amazon S3. You can use AWS Lake Formation to register the S3 path as a data lake location, and enable fine-grained access control to limit access to the records based on the HR department’s Region. You can use data filters to specify which S3 prefixes or partitions each HR department can access, and grant permissions to the IAM roles of the HR departments accordingly. This solution will meet the requirement with the least operational overhead, as it simplifies the data lake management and security, and leverages the existing IAM roles of the HR departments12.

The other options are not optimal for the following reasons:

A. Use data filters for each Region to register the S3 paths as data locations. This option is not possible, as data filters are not used to register S3 paths as data locations, but to grant permissions to access specific S3 prefixes or partitions within a data location. Moreover, this option does not specify how to limit access to the records based on the HR department’s Region.

C. Modify the IAM roles of the HR departments to add a data filter for each department’s Region. This option is not possible, as data filters are not added to IAM roles, but to permissions granted by AWS Lake Formation. Moreover, this option does not specify how to register the S3 path as a data lake location, or how to enable fine-grained access control in AWS Lake Formation.

E. Create a separate S3 bucket for each Region. Configure an IAM policy to allow S3 access. Restrict access based on Region. This option is not recommended, as it would require more operational overhead to create and manage multiple S3 buckets, and to configure and maintain IAM policies for each HR department. Moreover, this option does not leverage the benefits of AWS Lake Formation, such as data cataloging, data transformation, and data governance.

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

The streaming ingestion feature of Amazon Redshift enables you to ingest data from streaming sources, such as Amazon Kinesis Data Streams, into Amazon Redshift tables in near real-time. You can use the streaming ingestion feature to process the streaming data from the wearable devices, hospital equipment, and patient records. The streaming ingestion feature also supports incremental updates, which means you can append new data or update existing data in the Amazon Redshift tables. This way, you can store the data in an Amazon Redshift Serverless warehouse and support near real-time analytics of the streaming data and the previous day’s data. This solution meets the requirements with the least operational overhead, as it does not require any additional services or components to ingest and process the streaming data. The other options are either not feasible or not optimal. Loading data into Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose and then into Amazon Redshift (option A) would introduce additional latency and cost, as well as require additional configuration and management. Loading data into Amazon S3 and then using the COPY command to load the data into Amazon Redshift (option C) would also introduce additional latency and cost, as well as require additional storage space and ETL logic. Using the Amazon Aurora zero-ETL integration with Amazon Redshift (option D) would not work, as it requires the data to be stored in Amazon Aurora first, which is not the case for the streaming data from the healthcare company. References:

Using streaming ingestion with Amazon Redshift

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide, Chapter 3: Data Ingestion and Transformation, Section 3.5: Amazon Redshift Streaming Ingestion