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

ISTQB Exam CTAL-TTA Topic 1 Question 29 Discussion

Actual exam question for ISTQB's CTAL-TTA exam
Question #: 29
Topic #: 1
[All CTAL-TTA Questions]

The last release of a hotel booking website resulted in poor system performance when hotel searches reached peak volumes. To address these problems in the forthcoming release, changes to the system architecture are to be implemented as follows:

Change 1 - Provision of a single Internet service using multiple servers, rather than a single server, to maximize throughput and minimize response time during peak volumes

Change 2 - Prevention of unnecessary database calls for objects that were not immediately needed by the calling applications. Achieved by not automatically creating database connections at the start of processing, instead only just before the data is required.

The system architecture document has been drafted and as Technical Test Analyst you have been invited to participate in its review. Which of the following review checklist items is MOST likely to identify any defects in the proposed system architecture for Change 2?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

Preparing for a code review is essential for understanding how the specific item under review interacts with other system components. This preparation allows the reviewer to identify potential integration issues or dependencies that could affect system functionality or performance. Adequate preparation ensures that the review is thorough and considers the broader system context, which is critical for ensuring that the system operates cohesively and according to specifications.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Sabrina
55 minutes ago
Lazy instantiation, huh? Sounds like a fancy way of saying 'only do the bare minimum required.' I like it! Now, if only I could apply that principle to my life in general...
upvoted 0 times
...
Xochitl
2 days ago
I'm just hoping they don't expect us to come up with some crazy, overly complex solution. Caching sounds like a reasonable approach, but I'm not sure if it's the 'most likely' to identify defects in Change 2. Ah well, guess I'll have to think this one through.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gerri
6 days ago
Hmm, I'm not too sure about this one. Wouldn't connection pooling be a better option? That way, we can reuse existing connections instead of constantly opening and closing them. Seems more efficient to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corrie
12 days ago
I'm not sure, but I think connection pooling might also be important for Change 2.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lanie
18 days ago
Ah, I see, Change 2 is all about optimizing database connections. Lazy instantiation seems like the way to go here - only creating connections when the data is actually needed. That should help reduce the unnecessary overhead.
upvoted 0 times
Crista
2 days ago
Lazy instantiation is definitely the key here. It will help in reducing unnecessary database calls.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Johana
21 days ago
I agree with Gwen, lazy instantiation would be crucial for detecting issues in the proposed system architecture.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gwen
22 days ago
I think lazy instantiation could help identify defects in Change 2.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77