Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Google Professional Data Engineer Exam - Topic 5 Question 107 Discussion

You want to optimize your queries for cost and performance. How should you structure your data?
B) Partition table data by create_date cluster table data by location_Id and device_version
A) Partition table data by create_date, location_id and device_version
C) Cluster table data by create_date location_id and device_version
D) Cluster table data by create_date partition by locationed and device_version

Google Professional Data Engineer Exam - Topic 5 Question 107 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Professional Data Engineer exam
Question #: 107
Topic #: 5
[All Professional Data Engineer Questions]

You want to optimize your queries for cost and performance. How should you structure your data?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Melita at May 03, 2025, 11:37 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Professional Data Engineer Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Howard
8 months ago
C seems a bit off, isn’t clustering usually for performance?
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosendo
9 months ago
I think B makes more sense for clustering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Domitila
9 months ago
A is the best option for optimizing cost and performance!
upvoted 0 times
...
Chandra
9 months ago
D sounds confusing, can you really partition by locationed?
upvoted 0 times
...
Elke
9 months ago
Wait, what’s the difference between partitioning and clustering again?
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurena
9 months ago
I thought clustering was more about how the data is physically stored, so maybe option C is the right approach?
upvoted 0 times
...
Raylene
10 months ago
I feel like option B might be the best choice since it combines both partitioning and clustering, but I'm a bit confused about the order.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daryl
10 months ago
I remember a practice question where clustering helped with query performance, but I can't recall the exact details.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laura
10 months ago
I think partitioning by create_date makes sense, but I'm not sure if I should cluster by location_id or device_version.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mendy
10 months ago
Option C looks promising to me - clustering the data by all three attributes could provide good performance for a wide range of queries. I'll need to do some research on the pros and cons of clustering versus partitioning to make a final decision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yolando
11 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the difference between partitioning and clustering. Can someone explain that to me in simple terms? I want to make sure I understand the concepts before choosing an answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Keith
11 months ago
I'm leaning towards option B - partitioning by create_date and then clustering by location_id and device_version. That way, I can take advantage of both partitioning and clustering to optimize the data structure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alaine
11 months ago
Partitioning by create_date, location_id, and device_version seems like a good approach to improve query performance, but I'm not sure if it's the most cost-effective.
upvoted 0 times
...
Detra
11 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the trade-offs between partitioning and clustering to optimize for both cost and performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Becky
1 year ago
This question is making my head spin like a data-driven tornado. Time to grab a cup of coffee and think it through again.
upvoted 0 times
...
Loren
1 year ago
Option B all the way! Partitioning and clustering, it's like a dance of optimization. Now, if only I could get my boss to understand the importance of this...
upvoted 0 times
Monroe
1 year ago
I agree, it really does make a difference in cost and performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glenn
1 year ago
Option B all the way! Partitioning and clustering, it's like a dance of optimization.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Portia
1 year ago
Option D? Really? Clustering by create_date and then partitioning by location_id and device_version? Sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.
upvoted 0 times
Alva
1 year ago
A) Partition table data by create_date, location_id and device_version
upvoted 0 times
...
Daniel
1 year ago
C) Cluster table data by create_date location_id and device_version
upvoted 0 times
...
Madonna
1 year ago
B) Partition table data by create_date cluster table data by location_Id and device_version
upvoted 0 times
...
Roselle
1 year ago
A) Partition table data by create_date, location_id and device_version
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Patria
1 year ago
I prefer option D, clustering table data by create_date and partitioning by location_id and device_version can help with query optimization.
upvoted 0 times
...
Madelyn
1 year ago
Hmm, this is a tough one. I'm going to have to go with Option C. Clustering all three columns seems like the simplest approach, and it might be good enough for most use cases.
upvoted 0 times
Gerardo
1 year ago
I agree, clustering by all three columns seems like a good balance between cost and performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erick
1 year ago
I think Option C is the best choice too. It simplifies the structure and should help with performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Aretha
1 year ago
I think option C makes the most sense, clustering table data by create_date, location_id, and device_version can provide both cost and performance benefits.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lizette
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe option B is more efficient because clustering table data by location_id and device_version can improve performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pamella
1 year ago
I'm leaning towards Option A. Partitioning by all three columns should provide the best overall optimization, even if it's a bit more complicated to set up.
upvoted 0 times
Wade
1 year ago
User 3: Option A does seem like the most comprehensive approach. It's worth the extra effort for better optimization.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawnda
1 year ago
User 2: I agree, it may be a bit more work to set up, but it should optimize both cost and performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joni
1 year ago
User 1: I think Option A is the way to go. Partitioning by all three columns seems like the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Keshia
1 year ago
I think option A is the best choice because partitioning by create_date, location_id, and device_version can help optimize queries.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thea
1 year ago
Option B seems like the way to go. Partitioning by create_date and then clustering by location_id and device_version sounds like a good strategy to optimize both cost and performance.
upvoted 0 times
Olen
1 year ago
Partitioning by create_date and then clustering by location_id and device_version sounds like a good strategy to optimize both cost and performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vi
1 year ago
Option B seems like the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel