A data engineer is tasked with creating multiple schemas within a Snowflake database called 'SALES DB'. These schemas need to be isolated from each other to prevent accidental data access. Which of th

Question

Options

• ACreate all schemas under the 'PUBLIC' schema of 'SALES_DB' and grant specific privileges on
• BCreate a separate database for each schema, leading to multiple databases instead of schemas
• CCreate separate schemas within 'SALES_DB' and grant specific privileges on each schema to
• DCreate one large schema and prefix all table names with the schema name to simulate schema
• ECreating external tables and configuring different storage integrations for each table.

• A
  8% (2)
• C
  62% (16)
• D
  12% (3)
• E
  19% (5)

Explanation

Creating separate schemas within SALES_DB and assigning granular privileges per schema (C) is correct because Snowflake's native access control model is built around this hierarchy: database → schema → objects. Each schema acts as a logical namespace, and role-based privileges can be scoped precisely to each schema, providing true isolation without duplication.

Why the distractors fail:

• A - Snowflake's PUBLIC schema is a single shared namespace; nesting schemas inside it isn't how Snowflake works, and it defeats isolation.
• B - Separate databases add unnecessary administrative overhead, cost, and complexity for what is simply a schema-level concern.
• D - Name prefixes are a naming convention, not a security boundary - any user with table access can still reach all tables in the same schema.
• E - External tables with storage integrations solve data location problems, not access isolation between internal schemas.

Memory tip: Think of Snowflake's hierarchy as a filing cabinet: the database is the cabinet, schemas are the locked drawers, and tables are the files inside. You lock individual drawers (grant schema-level privileges), not the whole cabinet or individual files.

No community discussion yet for this question.