Amazon Web Services Data-Engineer-Associate Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Option A is correct. The MERGE INTO statement is used to conditionally update, insert, or delete rows based on a match condition between a target table and a source table. In this statement, the target table is accounts and the source table is monthly_accounts_update. The join condition is t.customer = s.customer. Because the statement uses WHEN MATCHED THEN DELETE, every row in accounts that has a matching customer value in monthly_accounts_update will be deleted from the target table.

AWS documentation for MERGE INTO states that it conditionally updates, deletes, or inserts rows into an Apache Iceberg table, and the syntax explicitly includes WHEN MATCHED THEN DELETE. AWS Glue guidance and examples for Iceberg also show MERGE INTO as a supported pattern for row-level changes in Glue ETL workflows. This means the syntax is valid for supported Glue-Iceberg use cases, so option D is incorrect. Options B and C are also incorrect because the statement does not retain only matching rows and does not delete the entire table. It deletes only the rows in the target table that satisfy the match condition.

Option D is the best solution to meet the requirements with the least operational overhead because AWS Lake Formation is a fully managed service that simplifies the process of building, securing, and managing data lakes. AWS Lake Formation allows you to define granular data access policies at the row and column level for different users and groups. AWS Lake Formation also integrates with Amazon Athena, Amazon Redshift Spectrum, and Apache Hive on Amazon EMR, enabling these services to access the data in the data lake through AWS Lake Formation.

Option A is not a good solution because S3 access policies cannot restrict data access by rows and columns. S3 access policies are based on the identity and permissions of the requester, the bucket and object ownership, and the object prefix and tags. S3 access policies cannot enforce fine-grained data access control at the row and column level.

Option B is not a good solution because it involves using Apache Ranger and Apache Pig, which are not fully managed services and require additional configuration and maintenance. Apache Ranger is a framework that provides centralized security administration for data stored in Hadoop clusters, such as Amazon EMR. Apache Ranger can enforce row-level and column-level access policies for Apache Hive tables. However, Apache Ranger is not a native AWS service and requires manual installation and configuration on Amazon EMR clusters. Apache Pig is a platform that allows you to analyze large data sets using a high-level scripting language called Pig Latin. Apache Pig can access data stored in Amazon S3 and process it using Apache Hive. However, Apache Pig is not a native AWS service and requires manual installation and configuration on Amazon EMR clusters.

Option C is not a good solution because Amazon Redshift is not a suitable service for data lake storage. Amazon Redshift is a fully managed data warehouse service that allows you to run complex analytical queries using standard SQL. Amazon Redshift can enforce row-level and column-level access policies for different users and groups. However, Amazon Redshift is not designed to store and process large volumes of unstructured or semi-structured data, which are typical characteristics of data lakes. Amazon Redshift is also more expensive and less scalable than Amazon S3 for data lake storage.

AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate DEA-C01 Complete Study Guide

What Is AWS Lake Formation? - AWS Lake Formation

Using AWS Lake Formation with Amazon Athena - AWS Lake Formation

Using AWS Lake Formation with Amazon Redshift Spectrum - AWS Lake Formation

Using AWS Lake Formation with Apache Hive on Amazon EMR - AWS Lake Formation

Using Bucket Policies and User Policies - Amazon Simple Storage Service

Apache Ranger

Apache Pig

What Is Amazon Redshift? - Amazon Redshift

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.