Amazon Web Services Data-Engineer-Associate - AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate (DEA-C01)

The company is using a data mesh architecture with AWS Lake Formation for governance and needs to share specific subsets of data with different teams (marketing and compliance) using Amazon Redshift Serverless.

Option A: Create views of the tables that need to be shared. Include only the required columns.Creating views in Amazon Redshift that include only the necessary columns allows for fine-grained access control. This method ensures that each team has access to only the data they are authorized to view.

Option E: Share the Amazon Redshift data share to the Amazon Redshift Serverless workgroup in the marketing team's account.Amazon Redshift data sharing enables live access to data across Redshift clusters or Serverless workgroups. By sharing data with specific workgroups, you can ensure that the marketing team and compliance team each access the relevant subset of data based on the views created.

Option B (creating a Redshift data share) is close but does not address the fine-grained column-level access.

Option C (creating a managed VPC endpoint) is unnecessary for sharing data with specific teams.

Option D (sharing with the Lake Formation catalog) is incorrect because Redshift data shares do not integrate directly with Lake Formation catalogs; they are specific to Redshift workgroups.

To achieve the most cost-effective storage solution, the data engineer needs to use an S3 Lifecycle policy that transitions objects to lower-cost storage classes based on their access patterns, and deletes them when they are no longer needed. The storage classes should also provide high availability, which means they should be resilient to the loss of data in a single Availability Zone1. Therefore, the solution must include the following steps:

Transition objects to S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) after 6 months. S3 Standard-IA is designed for data that is accessed less frequently, but requires rapid access when needed. It offers the same high durability, throughput, and low latency as S3 Standard, but with a lower storage cost and a retrieval fee2. Therefore, it is suitable for data files that are accessed once or twice each month. S3 Standard-IA also provides high availability, as it stores data redundantly across multiple Availability Zones1.

Transfer objects to S3 Glacier Deep Archive after 2 years. S3 Glacier Deep Archive is the lowest-cost storage class that offers secure and durable storage for data that is rarely accessed and can tolerate a 12-hour retrieval time. It is ideal for long-term archiving and digital preservation3. Therefore, it is suitable for data files that are accessed only once or twice each year. S3 Glacier Deep Archive also provides high availability, as it stores data across at least three geographically dispersed Availability Zones1.

Delete objects when they are no longer needed. The data engineer can specify an expiration action in the S3 Lifecycle policy to delete objects after a certain period of time. This will reduce the storage cost and comply with any data retention policies.

Option C is the only solution that includes all these steps. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

Option A is incorrect because it transitions objects to S3 One Zone-Infrequent Access (S3 One Zone-IA) after 6 months. S3 One Zone-IA is similar to S3 Standard-IA, but it stores data in a single Availability Zone. This means it has a lower availability and durability than S3 Standard-IA, and it is not resilient to the loss of data in a single Availability Zone1. Therefore, it does not provide high availability as required.

Option B is incorrect because it transfers objects to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval after 2 years. S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval is a storage class that offers secure and durable storage for data that is accessed infrequently and can tolerate a retrieval time of minutes to hours. It is more expensive than S3 Glacier Deep Archive, and it is not suitable for data that is accessed only once or twice each year3. Therefore, it is not the most cost-effective option.

Option D is incorrect because it combines the errors of option A and B. It transitions objects to S3 One Zone-IA after 6 months, which does not provide high availability, and it transfers objects to S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval after 2 years, which is not the most cost-effective option.

1: Amazon S3 storage classes - Amazon Simple Storage Service

2: Amazon S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) - Amazon Simple Storage Service

3: Amazon S3 Glacier and S3 Glacier Deep Archive - Amazon Simple Storage Service

[4]: Expiring objects - Amazon Simple Storage Service

[5]: Managing your storage lifecycle - Amazon Simple Storage Service

[6]: Examples of S3 Lifecycle configuration - Amazon Simple Storage Service

[7]: Amazon S3 Lifecycle further optimizes storage cost savings with new features - What’s New with AWS

 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

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]

This solution will meet the requirements with the lowest latency because it uses Amazon Managed Service for Apache Flink to process the sensor data in real time and write it to Amazon Timestream, a fast, scalable, and serverless time series database. Amazon Timestream is optimized for storing and analyzing time series data, such as sensor data, and can handle trillions of events per day with millisecond latency. By using Amazon Timestream as a source, you can create an Amazon QuickSight dashboard that displays a real-time view of operational efficiency on a large screen in the manufacturing facility. Amazon QuickSight is a fully managed business intelligence service that can connect to various data sources, including Amazon Timestream, and provide interactive visualizations and insights123.

The other options are not optimal for the following reasons:

A. Use Amazon Managed Service for Apache Flink (previously known as Amazon Kinesis Data Analytics) to process the sensor data. Use a connector for Apache Flink to write data to an Amazon Timestream database. Use the Timestream database as a source to create a Grafana dashboard. This option is similar to option C, but it uses Grafana instead of Amazon QuickSight to create the dashboard. Grafana is an open source visualization tool that can also connect to Amazon Timestream, but it requires additional steps to set up and configure, such as deploying a Grafana server on Amazon EC2, installing the Amazon Timestream plugin, and creating an IAM role for Grafana to access Timestream. These steps can increase the latency and complexity of the solution.

B. Configure the S3 bucket to send a notification to an AWS Lambda function when any new object is created. Use the Lambda function to publish the data to Amazon Aurora. Use Aurora as a source to create an Amazon QuickSight dashboard. This option is not suitable for displaying a real-time view of operational efficiency, as it introduces unnecessary delays and costs in the data pipeline. First, the sensor data is written to an S3 bucket by Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose, which can have a buffering interval of up to 900 seconds. Then, the S3 bucket sends a notification to a Lambda function, which can incur additional invocation and execution time. Finally, the Lambda function publishes the data to Amazon Aurora, a relational database that is not optimized for time series data and can have higher storage and performance costs than Amazon Timestream .

D. Use AWS Glue bookmarks to read sensor data from the S3 bucket in real time. Publish the data to an Amazon Timestream database. Use the Timestream database as a source to create a Grafana dashboard. This option is also not suitable for displaying a real-time view of operational efficiency, as it uses AWS Glue bookmarks to read sensor data from the S3 bucket. AWS Glue bookmarks are a feature that helps AWS Glue jobs and crawlers keep track of the data that has already been processed, so that they can resume from where they left off. However, AWS Glue jobs and crawlers are not designed for real-time data processing, as they can have a minimum frequency of 5 minutes and a variable start-up time. Moreover, this option also uses Grafana instead of Amazon QuickSight to create the dashboard, which can increase the latency and complexity of the solution .

1: Amazon Managed Streaming for Apache Flink

2: Amazon Timestream

3: Amazon QuickSight

Analyze data in Amazon Timestream using Grafana

Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose

Amazon Aurora

AWS Glue Bookmarks

AWS Glue Job and Crawler Scheduling

The requirement is to manage the size of an Amazon DynamoDB table by automatically deleting data older than 1 month without disrupting ongoing read or write operations. The simplest and most maintenance-free solution is to use DynamoDB Time-to-Live (TTL).

Option A: Use the DynamoDB TTL feature to automatically expire data based on timestamps.DynamoDB TTL allows you to specify an attribute (e.g., a timestamp) that defines when items in the table should expire. After the expiration time, DynamoDB automatically deletes the items, freeing up storage space and keeping the table size under control without manual intervention or disruptions to ongoing operations.

Other options involve higher maintenance and manual scheduling or scanning operations, which increase complexity unnecessarily compared to the native TTL feature.

The original query does not return results for all of the products because the year column in the sales_data table is not an integer, but a timestamp. Therefore, the WHERE clause does not filter the data correctly, and only returns the products that have a null value for the year column. To fix this, the data engineer should use the extract function to extract the year from the timestamp and compare it with 2023. This way, the query will return the correct results for all of the products in the sales_data table. The other options are either incorrect or irrelevant, as they do not address the root cause of the issue. Replacing sum with count does not change the filtering condition, adding HAVING clause does not affect the grouping logic, and removing the GROUP BY clause does not solve the problem of missing products. References:

Troubleshooting JSON queries - Amazon Athena (Section: JSON related errors)

When I query a table in Amazon Athena, the TIMESTAMP result is empty (Section: Resolution)

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide (Chapter 7, page 197)

To identify the reason why the Step Functions state machine is not able to run the EMR jobs, the company should take the following steps:

Verify that the Step Functions state machine code has all IAM permissions that are necessary to create and run the EMR jobs. The state machine code should have an IAM role that allows it to invoke the EMR APIs, such as RunJobFlow, AddJobFlowSteps, and DescribeStep. The state machine code should also have IAM permissions to access the Amazon S3 buckets that the EMR jobs use as input and output locations. The company can use Access Analyzer for S3 to check the access policies and permissions of the S3 buckets12. Therefore, option B is correct.

Query the flow logs for the VPC. The flow logs can provide information about the network traffic to and from the EMR cluster that is launched in the VPC. The company can use the flow logs to determine whether the traffic that originates from the EMR cluster can successfully reach the data providers, such as Amazon RDS, Amazon Redshift, or other external sources. The company can also determine whether any security group that might be attached to the EMR cluster allows connections to the data source servers on the informed ports. The company can use Amazon VPC Flow Logs or Amazon CloudWatch Logs Insights to query the flow logs3 . Therefore, option D is correct.

Option A is incorrect because it suggests using AWS CloudFormation to automate the Step Functions state machine deployment. While this is a good practice to ensure consistency and repeatability of the deployment, it does not help to identify the reason why the state machine is not able to run the EMR jobs. Moreover, creating a step to pause the state machine during the EMR jobs that fail and wait for a human user to send approval through an email message is not a reliable way to troubleshoot the issue. The company should use the Step Functions console or API to monitor the execution history and status of the state machine, and use Amazon CloudWatch to view the logs and metrics of the EMR jobs .

Option C is incorrect because it suggests changing the AWS Step Functions state machine code to use Amazon EMR on EKS. Amazon EMR on EKS is a service that allows you to run EMR jobs on Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS) clusters. While this service has some benefits, such as lower cost and faster execution time, it does not support all the features and integrations that EMR on EC2 does, such as EMR Notebooks, EMR Studio, and EMRFS. Therefore, changing the state machine code to use EMR on EKS may not be compatible with the existing data pipeline and may introduce new issues.

Option E is incorrect because it suggests checking the retry scenarios that the company configured for the EMR jobs. While this is a good practice to handle transient failures and errors, it does not help to identify the root cause of why the state machine is not able to run the EMR jobs. Moreover, increasing the number of seconds in the interval between each EMR task may not improve the success rate of the jobs, and may increase the execution time and cost of the state machine. Configuring an Amazon SNS topic to store the error messages may help to notify the company of any failures, but it does not provide enough information to troubleshoot the issue.

1: Manage an Amazon EMR Job - AWS Step Functions

2: Access Analyzer for S3 - Amazon Simple Storage Service

3: Working with Amazon EMR and VPC Flow Logs - Amazon EMR

[4]: Analyzing VPC Flow Logs with Amazon CloudWatch Logs Insights - Amazon Virtual Private Cloud

[5]: Monitor AWS Step Functions - AWS Step Functions

[6]: Monitor Amazon EMR clusters - Amazon EMR

[7]: Amazon EMR on Amazon EKS - Amazon EMR