Google  Professional Data Engineer on Google Cloud Platform Exam  Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 5 Q  81- 100

Visit here for our full Google Professional Data Engineer exam dumps and practice test questions.

Q81

A company wants to build a real-time analytics pipeline for e-commerce clickstream data. The system must handle millions of events per second, guarantee exactly-once processing, perform windowed aggregations, and support low-latency dashboards. Which architecture is most suitable?

A) Cloud Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery

B) Cloud Storage → Dataproc → BigQuery

C) Cloud SQL → Cloud Functions → BigQuery

D) Bigtable → Cloud Run → BigQuery

Answer

A) Cloud Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery

Explanation

A) Cloud Pub/Sub, Dataflow, and BigQuery form a fully managed, serverless pipeline designed for high-throughput real-time analytics. Cloud Pub/Sub ingests millions of clickstream events per second with automatic scaling and durable storage, handling traffic spikes during peak periods such as marketing campaigns or flash sales. Dataflow, based on Apache Beam, ensures exactly-once processing through deduplication, checkpointing, and stateful transformations. Windowed aggregations allow session-based metrics such as page views per minute, conversions per hour, and cart abandonment trends. BigQuery serves as the analytics layer, storing both raw and aggregated data, providing low-latency SQL queries for dashboards, reporting, and historical trend analysis. Its serverless architecture handles petabyte-scale datasets, automatically scaling storage and compute resources without manual intervention, making it ideal for e-commerce analytics.

B) Cloud Storage → Dataproc → BigQuery is batch-oriented, introducing latency unsuitable for near real-time dashboards. Dataproc clusters require manual management, and exactly-once processing is not inherent. This makes the architecture less suitable for high-frequency clickstream data.

C) Cloud SQL → Cloud Functions → BigQuery cannot handle millions of streaming events per second. Cloud SQL is optimized for transactional workloads and becomes a bottleneck, while Cloud Functions are stateless with execution time limits. Achieving exactly-once processing and windowed aggregations would require complex orchestration and manual scaling, increasing operational risk.

D) Bigtable → Cloud Run → BigQuery can store raw clickstream data efficiently, but Cloud Run lacks distributed stream processing capabilities and exactly-once semantics. Windowed aggregations and real-time dashboards would require additional orchestration, increasing complexity and reducing reliability compared to Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery.

Q82

A company wants to store historical IoT telemetry data in BigQuery. Queries often filter by timestamp and device type. The dataset is expected to grow to petabytes. Which table design is most appropriate?

A) Partition by ingestion timestamp and cluster by device type

B) Partition by device type and cluster by timestamp

C) Use a single unpartitioned table

D) Create multiple tables per device type

Answer

A) Partition by ingestion timestamp and cluster by device type

Explanation

A) Partitioning by ingestion timestamp allows queries filtered by time ranges to scan only relevant partitions, reducing the volume of data read and lowering costs. Clustering by device type physically organizes rows within each partition, optimizing query performance for filtering and aggregations on device type. This design supports petabyte-scale datasets and simplifies operational management since only a single table needs maintenance. Partitioned and clustered tables enable low-latency analytics for IoT scenarios such as anomaly detection, trend analysis, and predictive maintenance. BigQuery automatically manages partition metadata, scaling, and query optimization, making this approach both cost-efficient and high-performing.

B) Partitioning by device type is inefficient for IoT datasets with potentially millions of devices, creating numerous small partitions that increase metadata overhead. Clustering by timestamp alone does not optimize common query patterns filtered by device type.

C) A single unpartitioned table is unsuitable for petabyte-scale datasets. Queries filtering by timestamp or device type would scan the entire dataset, leading to higher costs and slower performance.

D) Multiple tables per device type increase operational complexity. Schema updates, cross-device queries, and maintenance become cumbersome. Queries across multiple tables require unions, increasing complexity and reducing efficiency.

Q83

A company wants to implement a GDPR-compliant analytics pipeline for BigQuery datasets containing sensitive customer information. PII must be automatically detected, masked, or anonymized, while allowing analytics on the transformed data. Which service is best suited?

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

B) Cloud KMS

C) Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP)

D) Cloud Functions

Answer

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

Explanation

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is designed to automatically detect, classify, and transform sensitive data such as PII. It integrates with BigQuery, Cloud Storage, and Pub/Sub, and comes with pre-built detectors for common PII like names, emails, phone numbers, social security numbers, and credit card data. DLP supports masking, tokenization, redaction, and format-preserving encryption, enabling analytics on anonymized data without exposing raw PII. Inline transformations can occur during ingestion or query execution, reducing operational overhead. Audit logging provides compliance visibility and traceability for GDPR, ensuring legal accountability. DLP is fully serverless, scalable, and capable of handling large datasets, making it the ideal choice for GDPR-compliant analytics pipelines.

B) Cloud KMS provides encryption key management and data-at-rest encryption but does not detect or transform PII, making it insufficient for GDPR analytics.

C) Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP) secures application access but does not detect, mask, or anonymize sensitive data for analytics purposes.

D) Cloud Functions can implement custom detection and masking logic but require significant development and maintenance. Functions lack built-in PII detection, making them less reliable for GDPR compliance compared to Cloud DLP.

 

Q84

A company wants to monitor BigQuery query costs and trigger near real-time alerts for expensive queries. The solution must be serverless, scalable, and low-maintenance. Which approach is most appropriate?

A) Query INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables with Cloud Functions and Pub/Sub alerts

B) Query BigQuery from Cloud SQL manually

C) Export logs to Cloud Storage and process offline

D) Store query metadata in Bigtable and poll for alerts

Answer

A) Query INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables with Cloud Functions and Pub/Sub alerts

Explanation

A) BigQuery INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables provide metadata about queries including runtime, bytes processed, and job costs. Cloud Functions can periodically query these tables to detect expensive queries and trigger alerts through Pub/Sub, email, or other notification channels. This solution is fully serverless, scales automatically with query volume, and requires minimal operational overhead. It enables near real-time detection of expensive queries, allowing teams to act promptly to control costs. Custom thresholds and rules can be defined to target specific types of queries, ensuring operational visibility and proactive cost management without manual intervention.

B) Querying BigQuery from Cloud SQL manually is not scalable. Cloud SQL cannot efficiently store or analyze large volumes of query metadata, and manual processes introduce latency in alerting.

C) Exporting logs to Cloud Storage and processing offline introduces delay, preventing near real-time monitoring and cost control.

D) Storing metadata in Bigtable and polling for alerts increases operational complexity. While Bigtable supports high-throughput writes, managing polling and alerts adds unnecessary overhead compared to serverless Cloud Functions + Pub/Sub.

Q85

A company wants to implement a multi-tenant SaaS analytics solution on BigQuery. Each tenant’s data must be isolated, but occasional cross-tenant queries are required. The dataset will grow to petabytes. Which table design is optimal?

A) Single table with tenant_id column and clustered by tenant_id

B) Separate BigQuery projects per tenant

C) Store data in Cloud SQL and replicate to BigQuery

D) Multiple unpartitioned tables per tenant

Answer

A) Single table with tenant_id column and clustered by tenant_id

Explanation

A) A single table with a tenant_id column and clustering by tenant_id provides optimal scalability, performance, and operational simplicity. Clustering organizes rows by tenant, improving query performance for filtering and aggregation. Partitioning by ingestion time further optimizes time-based queries. This approach supports petabyte-scale datasets without creating thousands of separate tables or projects. Cross-tenant queries are straightforward and efficient, requiring only filtering or grouping by tenant_id. Schema evolution is centralized, and BigQuery’s serverless architecture automatically manages scaling, metadata, and query optimization. This minimizes operational overhead while providing high performance and cost efficiency for large-scale multi-tenant SaaS analytics.

B) Separate BigQuery projects per tenant introduces high operational complexity, including billing, IAM management, and schema updates. Cross-tenant queries are cumbersome and inefficient.

C) Storing data in Cloud SQL and replicating to BigQuery adds latency and operational overhead, making it unsuitable for petabyte-scale analytics.

D) Multiple unpartitioned tables per tenant increase operational complexity. Managing thousands of tables and performing cross-tenant queries through unions is inefficient and error-prone.

Q86

A company wants to build a real-time analytics pipeline for social media engagement data. The pipeline must ingest millions of events per second, guarantee exactly-once processing, perform windowed aggregations, and support low-latency dashboards. Which architecture is most appropriate?

A) Cloud Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery

B) Cloud Storage → Dataproc → BigQuery

C) Cloud SQL → Cloud Functions → BigQuery

D) Bigtable → Cloud Run → BigQuery

Answer

A) Cloud Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery

Explanation

A) Cloud Pub/Sub, Dataflow, and BigQuery form a fully managed, serverless architecture designed for high-throughput streaming analytics. Cloud Pub/Sub ingests millions of social media events per second, automatically scaling to handle bursts such as trending posts or viral campaigns. It provides durable storage to prevent data loss during peaks. Dataflow, built on Apache Beam, ensures exactly-once processing through deduplication, checkpointing, and stateful transformations. Windowed aggregations allow metrics like engagement per minute, per post, or per user segment. BigQuery serves as the analytics layer, storing both raw and aggregated data for dashboards, reporting, and historical analytics. Its columnar, serverless architecture can handle petabyte-scale datasets, providing low-latency queries without manual cluster management. This architecture ensures reliable, real-time insights for social media analytics.

B) Cloud Storage → Dataproc → BigQuery is batch-oriented, introducing latency that prevents real-time dashboards. Cluster management adds operational complexity, and exactly-once semantics are not guaranteed.

C) Cloud SQL → Cloud Functions → BigQuery cannot handle millions of events per second. Cloud SQL is optimized for transactional workloads, and Cloud Functions have execution limits, making exactly-once processing and windowed aggregations challenging.

D) Bigtable → Cloud Run → BigQuery can store raw event data efficiently, but Cloud Run lacks distributed stream processing and exactly-once semantics. Windowed aggregations and low-latency dashboards require additional orchestration, increasing complexity.

Q87

A company wants to store historical IoT sensor data in BigQuery. Queries frequently filter by timestamp and device type. The dataset is expected to grow to petabytes. Which table design is most efficient for performance and cost?

A) Partition by ingestion timestamp and cluster by device type

B) Partition by device type and cluster by timestamp

C) Use a single unpartitioned table

D) Create multiple tables per device type

Answer

A) Partition by ingestion timestamp and cluster by device type

Explanation

A) Partitioning by ingestion timestamp ensures queries filtered by time ranges scan only the relevant partitions, reducing data scanned and lowering cost. Clustering by device type physically organizes rows within each partition, optimizing queries filtered or aggregated by device type. This design scales to petabyte-level datasets and simplifies operational management since only a single table is maintained. Partitioned and clustered tables enable low-latency analytics for IoT scenarios like trend analysis, anomaly detection, and predictive maintenance. BigQuery automatically handles partition metadata, scaling, and query optimization, providing a high-performance, cost-efficient solution for large IoT datasets.

B) Partitioning by device type is inefficient for large-scale IoT deployments with millions of devices, creating many small partitions that increase metadata overhead. Clustering by timestamp alone does not optimize queries filtered by device type.

C) A single unpartitioned table is unsuitable for petabyte-scale datasets. Queries filtered by timestamp or device type would scan the entire dataset, leading to higher costs and slower performance.

D) Multiple tables per device type increase operational complexity. Schema updates, cross-device queries, and maintenance become cumbersome. Queries across multiple tables require unions, which increases complexity and reduces efficiency.

Q88

A company wants to implement a GDPR-compliant BigQuery analytics pipeline for customer data. Sensitive PII must be automatically detected, masked, or anonymized while enabling analytics. Which service is best suited?

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

B) Cloud KMS

C) Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP)

D) Cloud Functions

Answer

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

Explanation

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is designed for automated detection, classification, and transformation of sensitive data such as PII. It integrates with BigQuery, Cloud Storage, and Pub/Sub, providing pre-built detectors for common PII types such as names, emails, phone numbers, social security numbers, and financial information. DLP supports masking, tokenization, redaction, and format-preserving encryption, allowing analytics on anonymized datasets without exposing raw PII. Inline transformations during ingestion or query execution minimize operational overhead. Audit logging ensures GDPR compliance by providing traceability and reporting capabilities. DLP is fully serverless, scalable, and can handle large datasets, making it the ideal choice for GDPR-compliant analytics pipelines.

B) Cloud KMS manages encryption keys and protects data at rest but does not detect, classify, or transform PII, making it insufficient for GDPR compliance.

C) Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP) secures access to applications but does not detect, mask, or anonymize sensitive data for analytics purposes.

D) Cloud Functions can implement custom detection and masking, but require significant development and maintenance. Functions lack built-in PII detection, making them less reliable for GDPR compliance compared to Cloud DLP.

Q89

A company wants to monitor BigQuery query costs and trigger near real-time alerts for expensive queries. The solution must be serverless, scalable, and low-maintenance. Which approach is most suitable?

A) Query INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables with Cloud Functions and Pub/Sub alerts

B) Query BigQuery from Cloud SQL manually

C) Export logs to Cloud Storage and process offline

D) Store query metadata in Bigtable and poll for alerts

Answer

A) Query INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables with Cloud Functions and Pub/Sub alerts

Explanation

A) INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables provide metadata about BigQuery queries, including runtime, bytes processed, and cost. Cloud Functions can query these tables periodically to detect expensive queries and trigger alerts through Pub/Sub, email, or other notification channels. This approach is fully serverless, scales automatically with query volume, and requires minimal operational overhead. It enables near real-time monitoring of query costs, allowing teams to act promptly to prevent budget overruns. Custom thresholds and alert rules can be defined to detect specific types of queries, providing operational visibility and proactive cost management without manual intervention.

B) Querying BigQuery from Cloud SQL manually is not scalable. Cloud SQL cannot efficiently handle large volumes of query metadata, and manual processes introduce latency, delaying alerting.

C) Exporting logs to Cloud Storage and processing offline introduces significant delay, preventing near real-time monitoring and cost control.

D) Storing metadata in Bigtable and polling for alerts increases operational complexity. While Bigtable supports high-throughput writes, managing polling and alerting logic adds unnecessary overhead compared to a serverless Cloud Functions + Pub/Sub approach.

Q90

A company wants to implement a multi-tenant SaaS analytics solution on BigQuery. Each tenant’s data must be isolated, but occasional cross-tenant queries are required. The dataset will grow to petabytes. Which table design is optimal?

A) Single table with tenant_id column and clustered by tenant_id

B) Separate BigQuery projects per tenant

C) Store data in Cloud SQL and replicate to BigQuery

D) Multiple unpartitioned tables per tenant

Answer

A) Single table with tenant_id column and clustered by tenant_id

Explanation

A) A single table with a tenant_id column and clustering by tenant_id provides the optimal balance of scalability, performance, and operational simplicity. Clustering physically organizes rows by tenant, improving query efficiency for filtering and aggregation. Partitioning by ingestion time further optimizes time-based queries. This design supports petabyte-scale datasets without creating thousands of separate tables or projects. Cross-tenant queries are straightforward, requiring only filtering or grouping by tenant_id. Schema evolution is centralized, and BigQuery’s serverless architecture automatically manages scaling, metadata, and query optimization. This approach minimizes operational overhead while ensuring high performance and cost efficiency for large-scale multi-tenant SaaS analytics.

B) Separate BigQuery projects per tenant introduces significant operational complexity, including billing management, IAM configurations, and schema updates. Cross-tenant queries are cumbersome and inefficient.

C) Storing data in Cloud SQL and replicating to BigQuery adds latency and operational overhead, making it unsuitable for petabyte-scale analytics.

D) Multiple unpartitioned tables per tenant increase operational complexity. Managing thousands of tables and performing cross-tenant queries through unions is inefficient and error-prone.

Q91

A company wants to build a real-time analytics pipeline for online gaming events. The system must handle millions of events per second, guarantee exactly-once processing, perform session-based windowed aggregations, and support low-latency dashboards for in-game analytics. Which architecture is most suitable?

A) Cloud Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery

B) Cloud Storage → Dataproc → BigQuery

C) Cloud SQL → Cloud Functions → BigQuery

D) Bigtable → Cloud Run → BigQuery

Answer

A) Cloud Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery

Explanation

A) Cloud Pub/Sub, Dataflow, and BigQuery form a fully managed, serverless architecture tailored for high-throughput real-time analytics in online gaming environments. Cloud Pub/Sub ingests millions of in-game events per second, automatically scaling to accommodate spikes caused by game updates, special events, or viral content. Its durable storage prevents data loss and ensures that all events are reliably delivered to downstream processing. Dataflow, built on Apache Beam, provides exactly-once processing through deduplication, checkpointing, and stateful transformations. Windowed aggregations allow computation of session-level metrics such as average playtime per session, actions per minute, and real-time leaderboard rankings. BigQuery stores both raw and aggregated data, enabling low-latency queries for dashboards, analytics, and historical reporting. Its serverless, columnar architecture allows petabyte-scale analytics without manual cluster management, making it ideal for gaming telemetry where speed, reliability, and accuracy are critical.

B) Cloud Storage → Dataproc → BigQuery is batch-oriented, introducing latency unsuitable for near real-time gaming dashboards. Dataproc clusters require manual provisioning and management, and exactly-once processing is not guaranteed.

C) Cloud SQL → Cloud Functions → BigQuery cannot handle millions of events per second. Cloud SQL is optimized for transactional workloads, and Cloud Functions have execution limits. Achieving exactly-once processing and windowed aggregations would require complex orchestration, increasing operational overhead.

D) Bigtable → Cloud Run → BigQuery can store raw events efficiently, but Cloud Run lacks distributed stream processing and exactly-once semantics. Windowed aggregations and near real-time dashboards would require additional orchestration, increasing complexity and reducing reliability.

Q92

A company wants to store historical IoT telemetry data in BigQuery. Queries frequently filter by timestamp and sensor type. The dataset will grow to petabytes. Which table design is optimal for performance and cost efficiency?

A) Partition by ingestion timestamp and cluster by sensor type

B) Partition by sensor type and cluster by timestamp

C) Use a single unpartitioned table

D) Create multiple tables per sensor type

Answer

A) Partition by ingestion timestamp and cluster by sensor type

Explanation

A) Partitioning by ingestion timestamp allows queries filtered by time ranges to scan only relevant partitions, reducing data scanned and lowering costs. Clustering by sensor type organizes rows within partitions, optimizing query performance for filtering and aggregation by sensor type. This approach supports petabyte-scale datasets while simplifying operational management, since only a single table is maintained. Partitioned and clustered tables enable low-latency analytics for IoT use cases such as trend analysis, anomaly detection, and predictive maintenance. BigQuery automatically manages partition metadata, scaling, and query optimization, making this design both high-performance and cost-efficient for large IoT datasets.

B) Partitioning by sensor type is inefficient for IoT deployments with millions of devices, creating many small partitions that increase metadata overhead. Clustering by timestamp alone does not optimize queries filtered by sensor type.

C) A single unpartitioned table is unsuitable for petabyte-scale datasets. Queries filtered by timestamp or sensor type would scan the entire dataset, leading to higher cost and slower performance.

D) Multiple tables per sensor type increase operational complexity. Schema updates, cross-sensor queries, and maintenance become cumbersome, and querying across multiple tables requires unions, increasing complexity and reducing efficiency.

Q93

A company wants to implement a GDPR-compliant analytics pipeline in BigQuery for customer data. Sensitive PII must be automatically detected, masked, or anonymized while allowing analytics on the transformed data. Which GCP service is most appropriate?

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

B) Cloud KMS

C) Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP)

D) Cloud Functions

Answer

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

Explanation

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is specifically designed for automated detection, classification, and transformation of sensitive data, including PII. It integrates with BigQuery, Cloud Storage, and Pub/Sub, providing pre-built detectors for common PII types such as names, emails, phone numbers, social security numbers, and financial information. DLP supports transformations including masking, tokenization, redaction, and format-preserving encryption, enabling analytics on anonymized datasets while protecting sensitive information. Inline transformations during ingestion or query execution minimize operational overhead, while audit logging ensures GDPR compliance through traceability and reporting. DLP is serverless, scalable, and capable of processing large datasets efficiently, making it ideal for GDPR-compliant analytics pipelines.

B) Cloud KMS provides encryption key management and protects data at rest but does not detect, classify, or transform PII, making it insufficient for GDPR analytics requirements.

C) Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP) secures access to applications but does not detect, mask, or anonymize sensitive data for analytics purposes.

D) Cloud Functions can implement custom detection and masking, but require significant development and maintenance. Functions lack built-in PII detection, making them less reliable for GDPR compliance compared to Cloud DLP.

Q94

A company wants to monitor BigQuery query costs and trigger near real-time alerts for expensive queries. The solution must be serverless, scalable, and low-maintenance. Which approach is most effective?

A) Query INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables with Cloud Functions and Pub/Sub alerts

B) Query BigQuery from Cloud SQL manually

C) Export logs to Cloud Storage and process offline

D) Store query metadata in Bigtable and poll for alerts

Answer

A) Query INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables with Cloud Functions and Pub/Sub alerts

Explanation

A) INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables provide metadata on BigQuery queries including runtime, bytes processed, and costs. Cloud Functions can periodically query these tables to identify expensive queries and trigger alerts through Pub/Sub, email, or other notification channels. This approach is fully serverless, scales automatically with query volume, and requires minimal operational overhead. It supports near real-time monitoring of query costs, allowing teams to act immediately to control spending. Custom thresholds and alert rules can be defined for specific query patterns, providing operational visibility and proactive cost management without manual intervention.

B) Querying BigQuery from Cloud SQL manually is not scalable. Cloud SQL cannot efficiently store or process large volumes of query metadata, and manual operations would introduce latency in alerting.

C) Exporting logs to Cloud Storage and processing offline introduces delays, preventing near real-time cost monitoring and timely alerting.

D) Storing query metadata in Bigtable and polling for alerts increases operational complexity. While Bigtable handles high-throughput writes, managing polling and alerts adds unnecessary overhead compared to serverless Cloud Functions + Pub/Sub.

Q95

A company wants to implement a multi-tenant SaaS analytics solution on BigQuery. Each tenant’s data must be isolated, but occasional cross-tenant queries are required. The dataset will grow to petabytes. Which table design is most suitable?

A) Single table with tenant_id column and clustered by tenant_id

B) Separate BigQuery projects per tenant

C) Store data in Cloud SQL and replicate to BigQuery

D) Multiple unpartitioned tables per tenant

Answer

A) Single table with tenant_id column and clustered by tenant_id

Explanation

A) A single table with a tenant_id column and clustering by tenant_id provides the best balance of scalability, performance, and operational simplicity. Clustering organizes rows by tenant, improving query efficiency for filtering and aggregations. Partitioning by ingestion time further optimizes time-based queries. This design scales to petabyte-level datasets without requiring thousands of separate tables or projects. Cross-tenant queries are straightforward and efficient, requiring only filtering or grouping on tenant_id. Schema evolution is centralized, and BigQuery’s serverless architecture manages scaling, metadata, and query optimization automatically. This minimizes operational overhead while providing high performance and cost efficiency for multi-tenant SaaS analytics.

B) Separate BigQuery projects per tenant introduces high operational complexity including billing, IAM management, and schema updates. Cross-tenant queries are cumbersome and inefficient.

C) Storing data in Cloud SQL and replicating to BigQuery adds latency and operational overhead, making it unsuitable for petabyte-scale analytics.

D) Multiple unpartitioned tables per tenant increase operational complexity. Managing thousands of tables and performing cross-tenant queries through unions is error-prone and inefficient.

Q96

A company wants to build a real-time analytics pipeline for streaming video platform events. The pipeline must ingest millions of events per second, guarantee exactly-once processing, perform windowed aggregations, and support low-latency dashboards for content engagement analytics. Which architecture is most suitable?

A) Cloud Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery

B) Cloud Storage → Dataproc → BigQuery

C) Cloud SQL → Cloud Functions → BigQuery

D) Bigtable → Cloud Run → BigQuery

Answer

A) Cloud Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery

Explanation

A) Cloud Pub/Sub, Dataflow, and BigQuery form a fully managed, serverless architecture that is ideal for high-throughput real-time analytics. Cloud Pub/Sub is capable of ingesting millions of video streaming events per second, such as play, pause, stop, and user engagement interactions. It automatically scales to handle bursts caused by trending videos, live streaming events, or viral content. Pub/Sub provides durable storage to prevent data loss and ensures message delivery to downstream consumers. Dataflow, built on Apache Beam, provides exactly-once processing through deduplication, checkpointing, and stateful transformations, ensuring accurate analytics and eliminating double counting, which is crucial for understanding user engagement and monetization metrics. Windowed aggregations allow computation of metrics over fixed or sliding time windows, such as the number of plays per minute, average watch duration per user, and ad engagement rates. BigQuery serves as the analytics layer, storing both raw and aggregated data. Its columnar, serverless architecture scales automatically to petabytes of data and supports low-latency queries for dashboards, ad hoc queries, and historical analysis. This architecture minimizes operational overhead while providing real-time insights for content analytics, user behavior, and monetization strategies.

B) Cloud Storage → Dataproc → BigQuery is batch-oriented. It introduces latency unsuitable for real-time dashboards, as events must first be written to storage and processed in batches. Dataproc clusters require manual scaling and management, and exactly-once semantics are not guaranteed. This architecture would delay insights, which is problematic for a streaming video platform where real-time user engagement data is critical.

C) Cloud SQL → Cloud Functions → BigQuery is not scalable for millions of events per second. Cloud SQL is optimized for transactional workloads and quickly becomes a bottleneck, while Cloud Functions have execution limits and are stateless. Achieving exactly-once processing and windowed aggregations would require significant orchestration and custom logic, increasing operational complexity and the risk of errors in analytics.

D) Bigtable → Cloud Run → BigQuery can store raw streaming events efficiently but lacks distributed stream processing and exactly-once semantics. Aggregations, sessionization, and low-latency dashboards would require additional orchestrations, such as custom batching, queuing, or additional compute resources, making it less practical than the Pub/Sub → Dataflow → BigQuery architecture.

Q97

A company wants to store historical IoT telemetry data in BigQuery. Queries often filter by timestamp and device type, and the dataset is expected to grow to petabytes. Which table design provides the best performance and cost efficiency?

A) Partition by ingestion timestamp and cluster by device type

B) Partition by device type and cluster by timestamp

C) Use a single unpartitioned table

D) Create multiple tables per device type

Answer

A) Partition by ingestion timestamp and cluster by device type

Explanation

A) Partitioning by ingestion timestamp reduces the amount of data scanned when querying time-based ranges, lowering query costs significantly. Clustering by device type organizes rows physically within partitions, optimizing query performance for filtering and aggregation based on device type. This combination supports petabyte-scale datasets and ensures efficient performance even as data volume grows. A single partitioned and clustered table simplifies operational management, as only one table needs to be maintained, avoiding complexity from multiple tables. This design also supports efficient streaming or batch ingestion, low-latency queries for monitoring, trend analysis, anomaly detection, and predictive maintenance. BigQuery automatically manages partition metadata, scaling, and query optimization, ensuring cost efficiency and high performance.

B) Partitioning by device type is less efficient for large IoT deployments with millions of devices, creating numerous small partitions, which increases metadata overhead and may degrade query performance. Clustering by timestamp alone does not optimize queries filtered by device type, which is a common access pattern for IoT data.

C) A single unpartitioned table is not suitable for petabyte-scale datasets. Queries filtered by timestamp or device type would scan the entire dataset, resulting in higher costs and slower performance.

D) Multiple tables per device type introduce operational complexity. Schema changes, cross-device queries, and maintenance are cumbersome, and queries across multiple tables require unions or joins, which reduces efficiency and increases operational overhead.

Q98

A company wants to implement a GDPR-compliant analytics pipeline on BigQuery datasets containing customer PII. Sensitive data must be automatically detected, masked, or anonymized while allowing analytics on transformed data. Which GCP service is most appropriate?

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

B) Cloud KMS

C) Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP)

D) Cloud Functions

Answer

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

Explanation

A) Cloud Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is specifically designed to detect, classify, and transform sensitive information such as PII. It integrates with BigQuery, Cloud Storage, and Pub/Sub. DLP provides pre-built detectors for names, emails, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, and other sensitive fields. It supports transformations like masking, tokenization, redaction, and format-preserving encryption, enabling analytics on anonymized data while preventing exposure of raw PII. Transformations can occur during ingestion or query execution, reducing operational overhead. Audit logs provide traceability for GDPR compliance, demonstrating when and how sensitive data is handled. DLP scales to handle petabyte-scale datasets without requiring infrastructure management, making it ideal for large-scale GDPR-compliant analytics pipelines.

B) Cloud KMS manages encryption keys and secures data at rest but does not detect, classify, or transform sensitive PII, making it insufficient for GDPR analytics needs.

C) Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP) secures access to applications but does not detect or anonymize PII within datasets, so it cannot ensure GDPR compliance for analytics workloads.

D) Cloud Functions can implement custom PII detection and masking logic but require significant development and maintenance. They lack built-in detection and transformation capabilities, making them less reliable for GDPR compliance compared to Cloud DLP.

Q99

A company wants to monitor BigQuery query costs and trigger near real-time alerts for expensive queries. The solution must be serverless, scalable, and low-maintenance. Which approach is most appropriate?

A) Query INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables with Cloud Functions and Pub/Sub alerts

B) Query BigQuery from Cloud SQL manually

C) Export logs to Cloud Storage and process offline

D) Store query metadata in Bigtable and poll for alerts

Answer

A) Query INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables with Cloud Functions and Pub/Sub alerts

Explanation

A) INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables contain metadata about BigQuery jobs, including query runtime, bytes processed, and job costs. Cloud Functions can query these tables periodically to detect expensive queries and trigger alerts through Pub/Sub, email, or other notification channels. This serverless architecture scales automatically with query volume, requires minimal maintenance, and enables near real-time monitoring of query costs. Custom thresholds and rules allow detection of high-cost queries proactively, providing operational visibility and enabling immediate action to prevent budget overruns. Since Cloud Functions are serverless, no cluster management is needed, and Pub/Sub ensures reliable message delivery for alerts. This approach is low-maintenance, highly scalable, and integrates natively with BigQuery’s metadata.

B) Querying BigQuery from Cloud SQL manually is not scalable. Cloud SQL cannot efficiently handle metadata from millions of queries, and manual processes introduce latency in alerting.

C) Exporting logs to Cloud Storage and processing offline introduces significant delay, preventing near real-time alerting and limiting cost control.

D) Storing query metadata in Bigtable and polling for alerts increases operational complexity. While Bigtable handles high-throughput writes, the manual orchestration required for polling and alerting is less efficient than serverless Cloud Functions + Pub/Sub.

Q100
A company wants to implement a multi-tenant SaaS analytics solution on BigQuery. Each tenant’s data must be isolated, but occasional cross-tenant queries are required. The dataset will grow to petabytes. Which table design is most optimal?

A) Single table with tenant_id column and clustered by tenant_id
B) Separate BigQuery projects per tenant
C) Store data in Cloud SQL and replicate to BigQuery
D) Multiple unpartitioned tables per tenant

Answer
A) Single table with tenant_id column and clustered by tenant_id

Explanation

A) Single table with a tenant_id column and clustering by tenant_id provides the most optimal solution for multi-tenant SaaS analytics for several reasons. Firstly, clustering in BigQuery organizes data based on the values of one or more columns—in this case, tenant_id. This ensures that rows for the same tenant are physically stored together on disk. Consequently, queries that filter or aggregate by tenant_id can read far fewer blocks of data, dramatically improving performance while reducing query costs.

When designing for petabyte-scale datasets, it is crucial to minimize the amount of data scanned for common queries. Clustering naturally optimizes query performance in multi-tenant environments where each tenant’s data may vary in size, frequency of queries, or access patterns. Without clustering, BigQuery would have to scan larger portions of the table for filtering, resulting in higher latency and increased costs.

Additionally, BigQuery allows partitioning by ingestion time (or other relevant timestamp columns), which complements clustering by further reducing scanned data for queries that involve time-based filters. For example, if analytics reports are typically run for recent data or monthly cohorts, partitioning ensures that only relevant partitions are scanned, enhancing both performance and cost efficiency. Combining partitioning and clustering is a best practice in BigQuery for large, multi-tenant datasets.

Another major advantage of a single-table design is operational simplicity. With a single schema, changes such as adding new columns or altering existing ones are centralized. This reduces the risk of inconsistencies, versioning problems, or schema drift that could occur if each tenant had a separate table or project. Moreover, BigQuery’s serverless architecture automatically handles scaling, storage, and metadata management. The platform optimizes query execution, dynamically allocating resources for large-scale, complex queries without requiring manual intervention. This is particularly important for SaaS applications that must scale rapidly as new tenants are onboarded.

Cross-tenant queries are also straightforward with a single-table approach. Since all data resides in the same table, filtering or grouping by tenant_id enables analytical operations across multiple tenants without the need for complex data movement or joins across different tables or projects. This is highly beneficial for use cases such as benchmarking, cohort analysis, or generating company-wide insights that aggregate multiple tenants’ data.

Furthermore, security and data isolation can still be achieved even within a single table. BigQuery supports row-level security (RLS), which allows queries to return only rows that a specific tenant is authorized to access. This ensures tenant isolation while preserving the ability to perform cross-tenant analytics when required. Combined with access controls at the dataset and table level, this provides a strong balance between security and analytics flexibility.

From a cost perspective, a single-table design minimizes overhead by reducing metadata storage and management operations. Multiple tables or projects require additional bookkeeping, permissions management, and can increase query complexity, which may translate into higher operational costs over time. Additionally, the simplicity of a single table reduces the risk of human error during schema updates or tenant onboarding, further lowering operational risk.

B) Separate BigQuery projects per tenant introduces significant operational overhead. While this approach ensures strong isolation and independent billing per tenant, it makes cross-tenant analytics cumbersome. Queries spanning multiple tenants require federated queries across projects, which can be slow and complex to manage at scale. Maintaining consistent schemas across thousands of projects increases administrative effort, as each project may require individual updates, permissions management, and monitoring. In large SaaS deployments with hundreds or thousands of tenants, this approach becomes impractical due to the exponential growth in operational complexity.

C) Store data in Cloud SQL and replicate to BigQuery is also suboptimal. Cloud SQL is a transactional relational database designed for online transaction processing (OLTP), not petabyte-scale analytical workloads. Storing raw tenant data in Cloud SQL introduces replication overhead and latency when moving data to BigQuery for analytics. As the dataset grows to petabytes, the time and resources required for replication become prohibitive. Additionally, Cloud SQL cannot efficiently handle massive analytical queries due to limitations in indexing, partitioning, and parallelism. The approach increases complexity while offering no substantial performance or cost advantage compared to a native BigQuery solution.

D) Multiple unpartitioned tables per tenant increases operational and query complexity. For a multi-tenant SaaS solution, each new tenant requires creating a new table. Queries across tenants require UNION ALL operations, which are inefficient and error-prone, especially as the number of tenants scales into the thousands. Without partitioning, time-based queries scan the full table, leading to higher costs and slower query performance. Maintaining thousands of tables increases schema management complexity and increases the likelihood of inconsistencies or errors, which becomes increasingly unsustainable at petabyte-scale.

In designing a multi-tenant SaaS analytics solution on BigQuery for petabyte-scale datasets requires careful consideration of scalability, performance, operational simplicity, and cost efficiency. A single table with a tenant_id column, clustered by tenant_id and optionally partitioned by ingestion date, strikes the optimal balance. It enables high-performance queries both within individual tenants and across multiple tenants, simplifies schema evolution and operational management, and leverages BigQuery’s serverless, massively parallel architecture to handle growth seamlessly. Alternative approaches either complicate cross-tenant queries, increase operational overhead, or fail to efficiently handle large-scale analytics.

By adopting a single, clustered table design, companies can build a robust, maintainable, and highly scalable multi-tenant analytics platform capable of supporting the diverse needs of SaaS environments while minimizing cost and administrative burden.