Which of the following is the best reason to use an extract instead of a live connection?

Question

Options

• AYour data source only supports a live connection via ODBC.
• BYou need the freshest possible data at all times.
• CYou need to apply an aggregation that takes too long when using a live connection.
• DYou need to join tables that are in the data source.

• A
  6% (3)
• B
  4% (2)
• C
  79% (38)
• D
  10% (5)

Explanation

Option C is correct because extracts pre-compute and store aggregated data locally, so a slow or expensive aggregation (like a complex SUM across millions of rows) runs once at extract refresh time rather than on every query - making dashboards far more responsive than a live connection that recalculates on demand.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is backwards: if a source only supports live via ODBC, you're constrained to live - you can't freely choose an extract.
• B is the opposite scenario: live connections exist precisely to serve the freshest data; extracts are snapshots that go stale between refreshes.
• D is a red herring: you can join tables in a live connection; joining is not a reason to switch to an extract.

Memory tip: Think of an extract as a "pre-baked" result - it shines when the cooking (aggregation/computation) is expensive. If speed of calculation is the bottleneck, extract wins. If freshness of data is the priority, live wins.

No community discussion yet for this question.