DP-500 · Question #87
Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals. Some question sets might…
The correct answer is B. No. The solution only removes the IoT ID column but retains the IoT GUID column, which is still unique per row and fails to improve dataset performance or enable hour/day analysis.
Question
Options
- AYes
- BNo
How the community answered
(21 responses)- A19% (4)
- B81% (17)
Why each option
The solution only removes the IoT ID column but retains the IoT GUID column, which is still unique per row and fails to improve dataset performance or enable hour/day analysis.
Keeping the IoT GUID column does not reduce cardinality or enable time-based analysis by hour and day, so the performance and analytical goals are not met.
Retaining the IoT GUID column, which is also unique per row, still introduces high cardinality that harms dataset performance. Furthermore, neither IoT column provides hour or day granularity - time-based columns would need to be derived or retained separately to support analysis by hour and day of the year. Both unique-identifier columns should be removed to achieve the performance goal.
Concept tested: Power Query data profiling and dataset performance optimization
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-bi/guidance/import-modeling-data-reduction
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.