Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Snowflake Exam DEA-C01 Topic 1 Question 32 Discussion

Actual exam question for Snowflake's DEA-C01 exam
Question #: 32
Topic #: 1
[All DEA-C01 Questions]

A Data Engineer ran a stored procedure containing various transactions During the execution, the session abruptly disconnected preventing one transaction from committing or rolling hark. The transaction was left in a detached state and created a lock on resources

...must the Engineer take to immediately run a new transaction?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

This option is the best way to ensure that Snowpipe is performant while minimizing costs. By splitting the files before loading them, the Data Engineer can reduce the size of each file and increase the parallelism of loading. By setting the SIZE_LIMIT option to 250 MB, the Data Engineer can specify the maximum file size that can be loaded by Snowpipe, which can prevent performance degradation or errors due to large files. The other options are not optimal because:

Increasing the size of the virtual warehouse used by Snowpipe will increase the performance but also increase the costs, as larger warehouses consume more credits per hour.

Changing the file compression size and increasing the frequency of the Snowpipe loads will not have much impact on performance or costs, as Snowpipe already supports various compression formats and automatically loads files as soon as they are detected in the stage.

Decreasing the buffer size to trigger delivery of files sized between 100 to 250 MB in Kinesis Firehose will not affect Snowpipe performance or costs, as Snowpipe does not depend on Kinesis Firehose buffer size but rather on its own SIZE_LIMIT option.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Leanora
1 months ago
I'm voting for option B, but only if it comes with a free coffee mug. You know, to commemorate the occasion of me canceling that pesky transaction.
upvoted 0 times
Fabiola
9 days ago
I would go with option D to avoid any errors.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawn
13 days ago
I think option B is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dortha
1 months ago
Option D, all the way! Setting the transaction abort on error to true? That's just common sense, folks. Why waste time with all these fancy system functions when you can just let the database handle it?
upvoted 0 times
Ty
14 days ago
Setting LOCK_TIMEOUT to FALSE could also work, but I prefer option D for immediate action.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oliva
16 days ago
I think calling the system function SYSTEM$CANCEL_TRANSACTION might be a quicker solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlen
18 days ago
I agree, option D is the way to go. Let the database handle it.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Oren
2 months ago
Wait, wait, wait... they want us to set the LOCK_TIMEOUT to FALSE? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I'll stick with option B, thank you very much.
upvoted 0 times
Martina
24 days ago
Yeah, I wouldn't want to risk any potential disasters. Option B is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Naomi
1 months ago
I think calling SYSTEM$CANCEL_TRANSACTION is the best way to handle the detached transaction.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brigette
1 months ago
I agree, setting LOCK_TIMEOUT to FALSE seems risky. Option B is a safer choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Rodolfo
2 months ago
Hmm, I'm not too sure about that one. But if I had to guess, I'd say option A is the way to go. Can't go wrong with a good old SYSTEM$ABORT_TRANSACTION, am I right?
upvoted 0 times
Henriette
12 days ago
Florinda: Let's hope it works and resolves the issue quickly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cherelle
1 months ago
User 3: I'm not sure, but I'll go with the majority. Option A it is.
upvoted 0 times
...
Florinda
1 months ago
User 2: Yeah, I agree. SYSTEM$ABORT_TRANSACTION seems like the right move.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maynard
2 months ago
User 1: I think option A sounds like the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Holley
2 months ago
Ah, the old 'transaction left in a detached state' problem. I'd go with option B - SYSTEM$CANCEL_TRANSACTION. Seems like the most straightforward way to clear that lock and get the new transaction running.
upvoted 0 times
Celeste
1 months ago
Yeah, I think calling SYSTEM$CANCEL_TRANSACTION is the way to go in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corazon
2 months ago
I agree, option B seems like the best choice to clear that lock quickly.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tyra
2 months ago
But wouldn't setting transaction abort on error to true prevent similar issues in the future?
upvoted 0 times
...
Tommy
2 months ago
I disagree, I believe setting LOCK_TIMEOUT to FALSE would be a better option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tyra
3 months ago
I think the Engineer should call SYSTEM$CANCEL_TRANSACTION.
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