- 302 Actual Exam Questions
- Compatible with all Devices
- Printable Format
- No Download Limits
- 90 Days Free Updates
Get All AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Exam Questions with Validated Answers
| Vendor: | Amazon |
|---|---|
| Exam Code: | DEA-C01 |
| Exam Name: | AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate |
| Exam Questions: | 302 |
| Last Updated: | October 6, 2026 |
| Related Certifications: | AWS Certified Data Engineer Associate |
| Exam Tags: |
Looking for a hassle-free way to pass the Amazon AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate exam? DumpsProvider provides the most reliable Dumps Questions and Answers, designed by Amazon certified experts to help you succeed in record time. Available in both PDF and Online Practice Test formats, our study materials cover every major exam topic, making it possible for you to pass potentially within just one day!
DumpsProvider is a leading provider of high-quality exam dumps, trusted by professionals worldwide. Our Amazon DEA-C01 exam questions give you the knowledge and confidence needed to succeed on the first attempt.
Train with our Amazon DEA-C01 exam practice tests, which simulate the actual exam environment. This real-test experience helps you get familiar with the format and timing of the exam, ensuring you're 100% prepared for exam day.
Your success is our commitment! That's why DumpsProvider offers a 100% money-back guarantee. If you don’t pass the Amazon DEA-C01 exam, we’ll refund your payment within 24 hours no questions asked.
Don’t waste time with unreliable exam prep resources. Get started with DumpsProvider’s Amazon DEA-C01 exam dumps today and achieve your certification effortlessly!
A company stores Apache Parquet files in an Amazon S3 data lake. The data lake receives thousands of files from multiple sources every hour. The files range in size from 50 KB to 100 KB.
The company is evaluating the implementation of Apache Iceberg tables for the data lake. The company is using AWS Glue Data Catalog as part of the evaluation. The company needs a solution to optimize query performance in Iceberg. The solution must ensure that Iceberg table performance does not degrade when more files are added over time.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Option C is correct because the main performance problem here is the large number of very small files. AWS Glue documentation explains that for Apache Iceberg tables, managed compaction reduces metadata overhead and improves read performance by compacting many small objects into larger ones. AWS Glue also provides table optimizers for Iceberg, and compaction can be configured to run automatically. This directly addresses the requirement that performance should not degrade as more files are added over time.
Option A could help somewhat, but it adds more operational work and the crawler step is unnecessary noise for this question. With Iceberg tables in the Glue Data Catalog, the better answer is the native automatic compaction capability rather than a manually scheduled Glue job. Option B is incorrect because the Data Catalog does not simply compact files ''every minute'' by default; compaction is enabled and configured through the Iceberg table optimizer settings. Option D is insufficient because partitioning alone does not solve the small-files problem, and frequent crawler runs do not prevent long-term Iceberg degradation. The AWS-native, least-operations answer is to enable automatic compaction based on thresholds.
Your organization stores sensitive customer data in Amazon Redshift and needs to enforce that different departments can only access specific columns based on their role. You also need to ensure that audit logs capture all data access for compliance purposes.
Which combination of AWS services and Redshift features best addresses both the access control and auditing requirements?
Redshift column-level security, combined with IAM roles and database-level roles, allows you to restrict access at the column granularity. Redshift audit logging captures all queries and access attempts, which can be sent to CloudWatch Logs for compliance and forensic analysis. This directly addresses both access control and auditing requirements within the Redshift ecosystem.
Lake Formation is primarily for S3-backed data lakes, not Redshift column-level access; materialized views and VPC security groups do not provide column-level security; row-level security is less granular than column-level and S3 policies do not audit Redshift query access.
A company has an on-premises PostgreSQL database that contains customer data. The company wants to migrate the customer data to an Amazon Redshift data warehouse. The company has established a VPN connection between the on-premises database and AWS.
The on-premises database is continuously updated. The company must ensure that the data in Amazon Redshift is updated as quickly as possible.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Option B is the only solution that supports near real-time updates from a continuously changing source to Amazon Redshift. The requirement says the on-premises PostgreSQL database is ''continuously updated'' and the target must be updated ''as quickly as possible.'' Nightly full backups or nightly full loads (Options A and D) inherently introduce at least a daily lag, which violates the freshness requirement. Similarly, exporting with pg_dump and reloading with COPY (Option C) is a batch approach and does not provide continuous change propagation.
The study material explicitly positions AWS Database Migration Service (DMS) for database migrations and highlights that it supports both full-load and change data capture (CDC), and that CDC enables continuous replication so ongoing changes can be applied after the initial load.
Therefore, a DMS task configured for full load + CDC provides the fastest ongoing synchronization pattern: it performs the initial migration and then continuously captures and applies changes so Redshift stays current with minimal delay compared to periodic batch reloads.
A company needs a solution that restricts access to Amazon S3 data and encrypts the data by using AWS managed keys. The solution must manage database credentials that an AWS Lambda function uses and must rotate the credentials automatically.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Option B is correct because IAM policies are the standard AWS mechanism to control access to Amazon S3, and SSE-KMS encrypts S3 data with AWS KMS keys. AWS S3 documentation for SSE-KMS explains that it uses AWS Key Management Service keys for server-side encryption, and Secrets Manager documentation states that you can store secrets securely and configure automatic rotation. AWS further explains that rotation updates the credentials in both the secret and the target database or service, and that Secrets Manager uses a Lambda rotation function for supported rotation patterns.
Option A is weaker because Lambda environment variables are not the right service for managed secret storage and automatic rotation. Option C is not the best answer because S3 ACLs are not the preferred modern access-control model compared with IAM and bucket policies, and Parameter Store is not the main AWS service for built-in managed database credential rotation. Option D uses SSE-S3, not KMS-based encryption, and relies on a custom rotation approach instead of the native managed secret-rotation service. The study guide also highlights AWS KMS for encryption-key management and Secrets Manager for rotating credentials.
A data engineer must orchestrate a data pipeline that consists of one AWS Lambda function and one AWS Glue job. The solution must integrate with AWS services.
Which solution will meet these requirements with the LEAST management overhead?
AWS Step Functions is a service that allows you to coordinate multiple AWS services into serverless workflows. You can use Step Functions to create state machines that define the sequence and logic of the tasks in your workflow. Step Functions supports various types of tasks, such as Lambda functions, AWS Glue jobs, Amazon EMR clusters, Amazon ECS tasks, etc. You can use Step Functions to monitor and troubleshoot your workflows, as well as to handle errors and retries.
Using an AWS Step Functions workflow that includes a state machine to run the Lambda function and then the AWS Glue job will meet the requirements with the least management overhead, as it leverages the serverless and managed capabilities of Step Functions. You do not need to write any code to orchestrate the tasks in your workflow, as you can use the Step Functions console or the AWS Serverless Application Model (AWS SAM) to define and deploy your state machine. You also do not need to provision or manage any servers or clusters, as Step Functions scales automatically based on the demand.
The other options are not as efficient as using an AWS Step Functions workflow. Using an Apache Airflow workflow that is deployed on an Amazon EC2 instance or on Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS) will require more management overhead, as you will need to provision, configure, and maintain the EC2 instance or the EKS cluster, as well as the Airflow components. You will also need to write and maintain the Airflow DAGs to orchestrate the tasks in your workflow. Using an AWS Glue workflow to run the Lambda function and then the AWS Glue job will not work, as AWS Glue workflows only support AWS Glue jobs and crawlers as tasks, not Lambda functions.Reference:
AWS Step Functions
AWS Glue
AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide, Chapter 6: Data Integration and Transformation, Section 6.3: AWS Step Functions
Security & Privacy
Satisfied Customers
Committed Service
Money Back Guranteed