SOL-C01 · Question #148
A company is experiencing inconsistent query performance in their Snowflake environment. Some queries execute quickly, while others, seemingly similar, take significantly longer. They suspect that the
The correct answer is C. Use the Snowflake web interface to review query history and identify queries with long execution E. Cluster the tables that are frequently joined together, especially those involved in slow queries.. Reviewing query history (C) paired with table clustering (E) forms a complete diagnose-then-optimize cycle: query history in Snowflake's Query Profile pinpoints exactly which queries are slow, how much data they scan, whether they spill to disk, and where execution time is spent
Question
A company is experiencing inconsistent query performance in their Snowflake environment. Some queries execute quickly, while others, seemingly similar, take significantly longer. They suspect that the virtual warehouse sizing is not optimal. Which of the following strategies would be the MOST comprehensive approach to diagnosing and resolving this issue, assuming you have access to Snowflake's monitoring tools and SQL?
Options
- AContinuously monitor the warehouse's CPU utilization and memory usage during peak hours. If
- BEnable the Query Acceleration Service. This will automatically improve query performance.
- CUse the Snowflake web interface to review query history and identify queries with long execution
- DImplement Resource Monitors to limit the credit usage of specific users or groups. This will prevent
- ECluster the tables that are frequently joined together, especially those involved in slow queries.
How the community answered
(31 responses)- A16% (5)
- B10% (3)
- C68% (21)
- D6% (2)
Explanation
Reviewing query history (C) paired with table clustering (E) forms a complete diagnose-then-optimize cycle: query history in Snowflake's Query Profile pinpoints exactly which queries are slow, how much data they scan, whether they spill to disk, and where execution time is spent - giving you the evidence needed to act. Clustering key implementation (E) then directly addresses the root cause by enabling micro-partition pruning, which is why two "similar" queries can perform very differently depending on how well the data layout matches the filter predicates.
Why the distractors fail:
- A (CPU/memory monitoring) is too coarse - warehouse-level metrics don't tell you which queries are slow or why, making it a poor diagnostic tool on its own.
- B (Query Acceleration Service) is neither automatic nor comprehensive - it only accelerates eligible large scan queries and adds cost; it's a targeted tool, not a fix-all.
- D (Resource Monitors) is a cost-governance feature, not a performance tool - throttling credits can actually worsen query performance.
Memory tip: Think "History → Structure" - you always read the history first (C) to know what's broken, then fix the structure (E) to prevent it. Any answer that skips diagnosis or substitutes cost controls for performance tuning is a distractor.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.