CERTIFIED-DATA-ENGINEER-PROFESSIONAL · Question #35
To reduce storage and compute costs, the data engineering team has been tasked with curating a series of aggregate tables leveraged by business intelligence dashboards, customer-facing applications, p
The correct answer is B. Configure a new table with all the requisite fields and new names and use this as the source for. The correct answer is B. The requirement is to add fields and rename existing fields for a customer-facing application without disrupting other teams that rely on the existing table schema. Creating a new table with the required schema and field names and pointing only the custom
Question
To reduce storage and compute costs, the data engineering team has been tasked with curating a series of aggregate tables leveraged by business intelligence dashboards, customer-facing applications, production machine learning models, and ad hoc analytical queries. The data engineering team has been made aware of new requirements from a customer-facing application, which is the only downstream workload they manage entirely. As a result, an aggregate table used by numerous teams across the organization will need to have a number of fields renamed, and additional fields will also be added. Which of the solutions addresses the situation while minimally interrupting other teams in the organization without increasing the number of tables that need to be managed?
Options
- ASend all users notice that the schema for the table will be changing; include in the communication
- BConfigure a new table with all the requisite fields and new names and use this as the source for
- CCreate a new table with the required schema and new fields and use Delta Lake's deep clone
- DReplace the current table definition with a logical view defined with the query logic currently
- EAdd a table comment warning all users that the table schema and field names will be changing on
How the community answered
(44 responses)- A7% (3)
- B73% (32)
- C16% (7)
- D2% (1)
- E2% (1)
Explanation
The correct answer is B. The requirement is to add fields and rename existing fields for a customer-facing application without disrupting other teams that rely on the existing table schema. Creating a new table with the required schema and field names and pointing only the customer-facing application to it achieves this with zero disruption - all other downstream consumers (BI dashboards, ML models, ad hoc queries) continue using the original table unchanged. This avoids schema changes to the shared table that would break existing queries referencing old field names. It does not increase managed table count unnecessarily compared to alternatives like deep cloning (option C), and avoids the risks of using views (option D) if the downstream application requires write access or specific physical optimizations.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.