Amazon AWS SAA-C03 Event-Driven Architectures, APIs, Queues, Messaging, and Workflow Orchestration Practice Test 3

 

Topic 07 Practice Test 3 covers Event-Driven Architectures, APIs, Queues, Messaging, and Workflow Orchestration for AWS SAA-C03. For broader exam preparation, review the AWS SAA-C03 Exam Dumps. Every option includes focused technical reasoning explaining both the AWS architecture concept and its fit to the scenario.

Question 1

An SQS consumer subscribed to an SNS topic expects the application’s original JSON payload and should not parse the outer SNS notification envelope. Which design choice best deliver the published payload directly to the SQS subscription? Choose ONE.

1. Amazon SNS standard topic
2. SNS message-body filter policy
3. SNS subscription filter policy
4. SNS raw message delivery to SQS

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. Amazon SNS standard topic implements managed publish/subscribe fan-out so one published message can be pushed to many independently configured subscriptions. Here, An SQS consumer subscribed to an…. The design must deliver the published payload directly to the SQS…. Its operating model does not satisfy the decisive constraint.
2. SNS message-body filter policy matches fields inside a well-formed JSON message body so a subscription can reject irrelevant publications. Here, An SQS consumer subscribed to an…. The design must deliver the published payload directly to the SQS…. That option would not change the behavior that matters here.
3. SNS subscription filter policy evaluates message attributes or JSON message bodies per subscription so each subscriber receives only its matching subset. Here, An SQS consumer subscribed to an…. The design must deliver the published payload directly to the SQS…. The requirement calls for different managed-service semantics.
4. SNS raw message delivery to SQS delivers the published payload directly to an SQS subscription instead of wrapping it in the normal SNS JSON envelope. Here, An SQS consumer subscribed to an…. The design must deliver the published payload directly to the SQS…. It provides the requested workflow behavior.

 

Question 2

A topic publishes JSON documents without useful message attributes. One subscription should accept only documents where payload.type equals invoice. Which design choice best filter an SNS subscription using fields inside the JSON payload? Choose ONE.

1. SQS content-based deduplication
2. SNS message-body filter policy
3. SNS subscription filter policy
4. EventBridge input transformer

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. SQS content-based deduplication derives a FIFO deduplication token from the message body hash, not from message attributes. Here, A topic publishes JSON documents without…. The design must filter an SNS subscription using fields inside the…. It cannot directly provide the delivery behavior being selected.
2. SNS message-body filter policy matches fields inside a well-formed JSON message body so a subscription can reject irrelevant publications. Here, A topic publishes JSON documents without…. The design must filter an SNS subscription using fields inside the…. It directly addresses the architecture decision.
3. SNS subscription filter policy evaluates message attributes or JSON message bodies per subscription so each subscriber receives only its matching subset. Here, A topic publishes JSON documents without…. The design must filter an SNS subscription using fields inside the…. It solves a related problem, not this requirement.
4. EventBridge input transformer selects and reshapes fields from an event into the payload expected by a target without a transformation Lambda function. Here, A topic publishes JSON documents without…. The design must filter an SNS subscription using fields inside the…. The component serves another purpose in the architecture.

 

Question 3

A FIFO order queue uses a dead-letter queue for poison messages. Queue creation fails because the proposed dead-letter queue is a standard queue. Which design choice best use a dead-letter queue whose queue type is compatible with the FIFO source? Choose ONE.

1. Amazon SQS standard queue
2. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy
3. FIFO source with FIFO dead-letter queue
4. EventBridge target dead-letter queue

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. Amazon SQS standard queue stores messages durably so independent consumers can absorb variable producer rates with at-least-once delivery and very high throughput. Here, A FIFO order queue uses a…. The design must use a dead-letter queue whose queue type is…. Its behavior does not match the requested outcome.
2. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy isolates messages that exceed a configured receive count so persistent failures can be inspected and later redriven. Here, A FIFO order queue uses a…. The design must use a dead-letter queue whose queue type is…. It can complement the design but not satisfy this need.
3. FIFO source with FIFO dead-letter queue keeps the source and DLQ queue types compatible, which SQS requires when a FIFO queue uses a DLQ. Here, A FIFO order queue uses a…. The design must use a dead-letter queue whose queue type is…. That is the strongest native fit.
4. EventBridge target dead-letter queue captures events that EventBridge cannot successfully deliver to a target after its retry policy is exhausted. Here, A FIFO order queue uses a…. The design must use a dead-letter queue whose queue type is…. Its semantics differ from the required behavior.

 

Question 4

A financial instruction stream is FIFO, and processing instruction N+1 before a failed instruction N would make the ledger invalid. The team is considering moving N to a DLQ. Which design choice best preserve strict business sequencing even when one FIFO message repeatedly fails? Choose ONE.

1. Keep poison message in FIFO path for strict sequence
2. SQS message deduplication ID
3. SQS visibility timeout
4. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. Keep poison message in FIFO path for strict sequence avoids moving an item aside when processing later items would make the business sequence invalid. Here, A financial instruction stream is FIFO…. The design must preserve strict business sequencing even when one FIFO…. That is the appropriate managed mechanism.
2. SQS message deduplication ID lets a FIFO producer supply a token so retries inside the deduplication interval do not enqueue another copy. Here, A financial instruction stream is FIFO…. The design must preserve strict business sequencing even when one FIFO…. It would leave the controlling constraint unresolved.
3. SQS visibility timeout temporarily hides a received message from competing consumers while a worker is processing that delivery. Here, A financial instruction stream is FIFO…. The design must preserve strict business sequencing even when one FIFO…. It lacks the specific behavior required.
4. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy isolates messages that exceed a configured receive count so persistent failures can be inspected and later redriven. Here, A financial instruction stream is FIFO…. The design must preserve strict business sequencing even when one FIFO…. Its purpose is adjacent rather than directly applicable.

 

Question 5

A dead-letter policy moves jobs aside after one failed receive, even though transient dependencies often recover on the second or third attempt. Which design choice best allow enough processing retries before SQS quarantines a message? Choose ONE.

1. SQS message deduplication ID
2. SQS message retention period
3. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy
4. SQS visibility timeout

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. SQS message deduplication ID lets a FIFO producer supply a token so retries inside the deduplication interval do not enqueue another copy. Here, A dead-letter policy moves jobs aside…. The design must allow enough processing retries before SQS quarantines a…. That choice would not deliver the required semantics.
2. SQS message retention period controls how long unconsumed messages remain available in a queue before SQS deletes them. Here, A dead-letter policy moves jobs aside…. The design must allow enough processing retries before SQS quarantines a…. It does not implement the needed control.
3. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy isolates messages that exceed a configured receive count so persistent failures can be inspected and later redriven. Here, A dead-letter policy moves jobs aside…. The design must allow enough processing retries before SQS quarantines a…. It delivers the required integration behavior.
4. SQS visibility timeout controls how long an in-flight SQS message stays invisible after receipt before it can be delivered again. Here, A dead-letter policy moves jobs aside…. The design must allow enough processing retries before SQS quarantines a…. The service is valid, but not for this decision.

 

Question 6

A team wants to replay only yesterday’s archived order events through two newly created validation rules, without triggering every rule on the bus. Which design choice best replay archived events while limiting replay delivery to selected rules? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge archive and replay
2. EventBridge event pattern filtering
3. Cross-account EventBridge event bus
4. EventBridge replay scoped to selected rules

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. EventBridge archive and replay stores selected events from one event bus and can later replay a chosen time range back to that source bus. Here, A team wants to replay only…. The design must replay archived events while limiting replay delivery to…. Another service owns the behavior being tested.
2. EventBridge event pattern filtering matches only events whose structured fields satisfy the rule pattern, avoiding consumer-side polling and discard logic. Here, A team wants to replay only…. The design must replay archived events while limiting replay delivery to…. This mechanism is not responsible for the requested property.
3. Cross-account EventBridge event bus accepts events from authorized producer accounts and centralizes routing through rules in a designated account. Here, A team wants to replay only…. The design must replay archived events while limiting replay delivery to…. It is related but not the direct mechanism.
4. EventBridge replay scoped to selected rules replays archived events to the source event bus while limiting delivery to specified rules during the replay. Here, A team wants to replay only…. The design must replay archived events while limiting replay delivery to…. It directly satisfies the design need.

 

Question 7

A central custom event bus in Account A must accept PutEvents calls directly from a producer role in Account B without exposing an HTTP API. Which design choice best authorize another AWS account to publish directly to a custom event bus? Choose ONE.

1. Cross-account EventBridge event bus
2. EventBridge custom-bus resource policy
3. Amazon SNS standard topic
4. API Gateway private REST API

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. Cross-account EventBridge event bus accepts events from authorized producer accounts and centralizes routing through rules in a designated account. Here, A central custom event bus in…. The design must authorize another AWS account to publish directly to…. The scenario needs a capability this choice does not supply.
2. EventBridge custom-bus resource policy grants authorized external AWS accounts permission to put events onto a custom event bus. Here, A central custom event bus in…. The design must authorize another AWS account to publish directly to…. That choice fits the resilience objective.
3. Amazon SNS standard topic broadcasts notifications to multiple subscribers and supports several endpoint types without creating a durable work backlog by itself. Here, A central custom event bus in…. The design must authorize another AWS account to publish directly to…. That option would not change the behavior that matters here.
4. API Gateway private REST API exposes a REST API through interface VPC endpoints so it can be invoked without public internet reachability. Here, A central custom event bus in…. The design must authorize another AWS account to publish directly to…. The requirement calls for different managed-service semantics.

 

Question 8

A security event bus receives many event types, but a remediation target should receive only events where severity is critical and resourceType is instance. Which design choice best apply structured rule criteria before invoking the remediation target? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge event pattern filtering
2. Amazon SQS standard queue
3. EventBridge input transformer
4. SNS subscription filter policy

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. EventBridge event pattern filtering matches only events whose structured fields satisfy the rule pattern, avoiding consumer-side polling and discard logic. Here, A security event bus receives many…. The design must apply structured rule criteria before invoking the remediation…. It delivers the required integration behavior.
2. Amazon SQS standard queue provides a durable asynchronous buffer that decouples senders from receivers and lets workers process messages at their own pace. Here, A security event bus receives many…. The design must apply structured rule criteria before invoking the remediation…. It solves a related problem, not this requirement.
3. EventBridge input transformer selects and reshapes fields from an event into the payload expected by a target without a transformation Lambda function. Here, A security event bus receives many…. The design must apply structured rule criteria before invoking the remediation…. This would not produce the routing or control outcome requested.
4. SNS subscription filter policy evaluates message attributes or JSON message bodies per subscription so each subscriber receives only its matching subset. Here, A security event bus receives many…. The design must apply structured rule criteria before invoking the remediation…. The component serves another purpose in the architecture.

 

Question 9

A Kinesis source contains many records that are irrelevant to one target. Matching records can be delivered in batches and should not invoke a custom consumer merely to discard the rest. Which design choice best filter source records and batch only relevant records before target invocation? Choose ONE.

1. Amazon EventBridge Pipes
2. EventBridge event bus with content-based rules
3. SQS long polling
4. EventBridge Pipes batching and filtering

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. Amazon EventBridge Pipes connects a supported source to one target with optional filtering, transformation, batching, and synchronous enrichment. Here, A Kinesis source contains many records…. The design must filter source records and batch only relevant records…. Its behavior does not match the requested outcome.
2. EventBridge event bus with content-based rules routes matching events by fields in the event pattern and can send matched events to AWS or cross-account targets. Here, A Kinesis source contains many records…. The design must filter source records and batch only relevant records…. Its semantics differ from the required behavior.
3. SQS long polling waits for messages across SQS servers, reducing empty receives and false empty responses compared with short polling. Here, A Kinesis source contains many records…. The design must filter source records and batch only relevant records…. It can complement the design but not satisfy this need.
4. EventBridge Pipes batching and filtering filters source records and can batch matching records before invoking a target to reduce unnecessary downstream calls. Here, A Kinesis source contains many records…. The design must filter source records and batch only relevant records…. That is the strongest native fit.

 

Question 10

A durable year-long order workflow includes a short idempotent image-transformation burst that can generate very high execution volume for a few seconds. Which design choice best retain a durable parent while using high-volume Express execution for the short idempotent subflow? Choose ONE.

1. Step Functions Standard Workflow
2. Step Functions Map state
3. Nested Express workflow inside Standard
4. Step Functions Express Workflow

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. Step Functions Standard Workflow provides durable, auditable long-running orchestration with exactly-once workflow execution semantics unless retries are configured. Here, A durable year-long order workflow includes…. The design must retain a durable parent while using high-volume Express…. It is plausible here but solves a different problem.
2. Step Functions Map state runs the same workflow logic over a collection of items and can provide controlled parallel processing. Here, A durable year-long order workflow includes…. The design must retain a durable parent while using high-volume Express…. It lacks the specific behavior required.
3. Nested Express workflow inside Standard keeps durable parent orchestration while offloading a short high-volume idempotent subflow to Express. Here, A durable year-long order workflow includes…. The design must retain a durable parent while using high-volume Express…. That choice fits the resilience objective.
4. Step Functions Express Workflow supports high-volume short-running orchestration and uses an at-least-once model for asynchronous executions. Here, A durable year-long order workflow includes…. The design must retain a durable parent while using high-volume Express…. It would leave the controlling constraint unresolved.

 

Question 11

An architecture review must choose between Standard and Express for a new state machine. The team assumes it can switch the workflow type after deployment if traffic changes. Which design choice best make the workflow-type decision before state-machine creation because it cannot be changed later? Choose ONE.

1. Choose Step Functions workflow type at creation
2. Step Functions Retry and Catch
3. Nested Express workflow inside Standard
4. Step Functions Choice state

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. Choose Step Functions workflow type at creation requires architects to select Standard or Express when creating the state machine because the type is immutable. Here, An architecture review must choose between…. The design must make the workflow-type decision before state-machine creation because…. It directly addresses the architecture decision.
2. Step Functions Retry and Catch handles transient task failures with defined retry policies and routes exhausted failures to explicit fallback states. Here, An architecture review must choose between…. The design must make the workflow-type decision before state-machine creation because…. It targets a different integration concern.
3. Nested Express workflow inside Standard keeps durable parent orchestration while offloading a short high-volume idempotent subflow to Express. Here, An architecture review must choose between…. The design must make the workflow-type decision before state-machine creation because…. The service is valid, but not for this decision.
4. Step Functions Choice state branches execution based on data conditions in workflow state without invoking compute just to evaluate routing logic. Here, An architecture review must choose between…. The design must make the workflow-type decision before state-machine creation because…. That choice would not deliver the required semantics.

 

Question 12

A fulfillment workflow must choose either domestic or international processing based on a country field already present in the state input. No code is needed for the decision. Which design choice best branch workflow execution from state data without invoking compute for the condition? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge event pattern filtering
2. Step Functions Choice state
3. Step Functions Parallel state
4. API Gateway REST API

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. EventBridge event pattern filtering matches only events whose structured fields satisfy the rule pattern, avoiding consumer-side polling and discard logic. Here, A fulfillment workflow must choose either…. The design must branch workflow execution from state data without invoking…. Another service owns the behavior being tested.
2. Step Functions Choice state branches execution based on data conditions in workflow state without invoking compute just to evaluate routing logic. Here, A fulfillment workflow must choose either…. The design must branch workflow execution from state data without invoking…. That capability resolves the key constraint.
3. Step Functions Parallel state starts multiple independent branches concurrently and waits for all of them before the workflow continues. Here, A fulfillment workflow must choose either…. The design must branch workflow execution from state data without invoking…. Its native function does not fit this scenario.
4. API Gateway REST API supports richer API-management features such as API keys, usage plans, request validation, WAF integration, caching, and private endpoints. Here, A fulfillment workflow must choose either…. The design must branch workflow execution from state data without invoking…. It is related but not the direct mechanism.

 

Question 13

A deployment workflow must run security scanning and performance testing at the same time, then continue only after both independent branches finish. Which design choice best execute multiple workflow branches concurrently and join them before continuing? Choose ONE.

1. Step Functions Choice state
2. Step Functions Parallel state
3. Step Functions Map state
4. Amazon SNS standard topic

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. Step Functions Choice state branches execution based on data conditions in workflow state without invoking compute just to evaluate routing logic. Here, A deployment workflow must run security…. The design must execute multiple workflow branches concurrently and join them…. That option would not change the behavior that matters here.
2. Step Functions Parallel state starts multiple independent branches concurrently and waits for all of them before the workflow continues. Here, A deployment workflow must run security…. The design must execute multiple workflow branches concurrently and join them…. That choice fits the resilience objective.
3. Step Functions Map state runs the same workflow logic over a collection of items and can provide controlled parallel processing. Here, A deployment workflow must run security…. The design must execute multiple workflow branches concurrently and join them…. The scenario needs a capability this choice does not supply.
4. Amazon SNS standard topic fans each publication out to multiple subscribed endpoints and is suited to broad pub/sub delivery when strict FIFO semantics are unnecessary. Here, A deployment workflow must run security…. The design must execute multiple workflow branches concurrently and join them…. The requirement calls for different managed-service semantics.

 

Question 14

A workflow must pause until a known maintenance timestamp before invoking the next step. No external callback is required. Which design choice best delay state-machine progress until a duration or timestamp without running compute? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge Scheduler
2. SQS delay queue or message timer
3. Step Functions callback with task token
4. Step Functions Wait state

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. EventBridge Scheduler invokes a target at a specified one-time or recurring schedule and is suited to scheduled rather than event-pattern triggers. Here, A workflow must pause until a…. The design must delay state-machine progress until a duration or timestamp…. This would not produce the routing or control outcome requested.
2. SQS delay queue or message timer defers visibility of newly sent standard-queue messages for a configured delay without running a separate scheduler. Here, A workflow must pause until a…. The design must delay state-machine progress until a duration or timestamp…. The component serves another purpose in the architecture.
3. Step Functions callback with task token pauses a Standard workflow until an external actor returns the task token, fitting human or external-system callbacks. Here, A workflow must pause until a…. The design must delay state-machine progress until a duration or timestamp…. It cannot directly provide the delivery behavior being selected.
4. Step Functions Wait state pauses workflow progress until a duration or timestamp without keeping compute running during the delay. Here, A workflow must pause until a…. The design must delay state-machine progress until a duration or timestamp…. That directly fits the requirement.

 

Question 15

A state machine starts an AWS Batch job and the next step must not run until that submitted job reaches completion. Which design choice best start a supported service job and wait for completion inside the orchestration? Choose ONE.

1. Step Functions Run a Job integration
2. Amazon SQS standard queue
3. Step Functions Express Workflow
4. Step Functions callback with task token

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. Step Functions Run a Job integration starts a supported service job and waits for that job to complete before advancing the state machine. Here, A state machine starts an AWS…. The design must start a supported service job and wait for…. That behavior matches the scenario.
2. Amazon SQS standard queue supports scalable asynchronous work queues without FIFO ordering guarantees, allowing many producers and consumers to operate independently. Here, A state machine starts an AWS…. The design must start a supported service job and wait for…. It can complement the design but not satisfy this need.
3. Step Functions Express Workflow supports high-volume short-running orchestration and uses an at-least-once model for asynchronous executions. Here, A state machine starts an AWS…. The design must start a supported service job and wait for…. Its semantics differ from the required behavior.
4. Step Functions callback with task token pauses a Standard workflow until an external actor returns the task token, fitting human or external-system callbacks. Here, A state machine starts an AWS…. The design must start a supported service job and wait for…. It addresses a neighboring concern instead.

 

Question 16

An HTTP endpoint receives job submissions. The backend needs only to place each request on SQS, and the team wants to remove an otherwise trivial Lambda function that performs the SendMessage call. Which design choice best integrate API Gateway directly with SQS to enqueue requests without a relay function? Choose ONE.

1. Amazon EventBridge Pipes
2. API Gateway plus SQS asynchronous buffer
3. API Gateway AWS service integration to SQS
4. API Gateway HTTP API

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. Amazon EventBridge Pipes connects a supported source to one target with optional filtering, transformation, batching, and synchronous enrichment. Here, An HTTP endpoint receives job submissions…. The design must integrate API Gateway directly with SQS to enqueue…. Its purpose is adjacent rather than directly applicable.
2. API Gateway plus SQS asynchronous buffer acknowledges ingress quickly while durable queueing absorbs spikes and workers process jobs at their own rate. Here, An HTTP endpoint receives job submissions…. The design must integrate API Gateway directly with SQS to enqueue…. It is plausible here but solves a different problem.
3. API Gateway AWS service integration to SQS lets API Gateway call SQS directly so a request can enqueue work without an intermediary Lambda function. Here, An HTTP endpoint receives job submissions…. The design must integrate API Gateway directly with SQS to enqueue…. It matches the required delivery semantics.
4. API Gateway HTTP API offers a lower-cost RESTful frontend with built-in JWT authorizers, OIDC support, CORS, and automatic deployments. Here, An HTTP endpoint receives job submissions…. The design must integrate API Gateway directly with SQS to enqueue…. It lacks the specific behavior required.

 

Question 17

A public ingestion API experiences tenfold traffic spikes. Clients should receive a quick acceptance response while worker capacity scales independently and no submitted job is lost. Which design choice best decouple API request rate from worker throughput with durable asynchronous buffering? Choose ONE.

1. API Gateway plus SQS asynchronous buffer
2. API Gateway HTTP API
3. API Gateway AWS service integration to SQS
4. Step Functions Express Workflow

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. API Gateway plus SQS asynchronous buffer acknowledges ingress quickly while durable queueing absorbs spikes and workers process jobs at their own rate. Here, A public ingestion API experiences tenfold…. The design must decouple API request rate from worker throughput with…. It delivers the required integration behavior.
2. API Gateway HTTP API offers a lower-cost RESTful frontend with built-in JWT authorizers, OIDC support, CORS, and automatic deployments. Here, A public ingestion API experiences tenfold…. The design must decouple API request rate from worker throughput with…. That choice would not deliver the required semantics.
3. API Gateway AWS service integration to SQS lets API Gateway call SQS directly so a request can enqueue work without an intermediary Lambda function. Here, A public ingestion API experiences tenfold…. The design must decouple API request rate from worker throughput with…. The service is valid, but not for this decision.
4. Step Functions Express Workflow supports high-volume short-running orchestration and uses an at-least-once model for asynchronous executions. Here, A public ingestion API experiences tenfold…. The design must decouple API request rate from worker throughput with…. It does not implement the needed control.

 

Question 18

A REST API should reject requests missing required query parameters or violating a JSON body schema before the backend Lambda function is invoked. Which design choice best enforce request-shape checks at API Gateway before backend execution? Choose ONE.

1. HTTP API JWT authorizer
2. EventBridge input transformer
3. REST API request validation
4. API Gateway HTTP API

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. HTTP API JWT authorizer validates JWT access tokens for an HTTP API using issuer and audience information without a custom Lambda authorizer. Here, A REST API should reject requests…. The design must enforce request-shape checks at API Gateway before backend…. It is related but not the direct mechanism.
2. EventBridge input transformer selects and reshapes fields from an event into the payload expected by a target without a transformation Lambda function. Here, A REST API should reject requests…. The design must enforce request-shape checks at API Gateway before backend…. Its native function does not fit this scenario.
3. REST API request validation rejects requests that do not meet configured parameter or body-model requirements before invoking the backend. Here, A REST API should reject requests…. The design must enforce request-shape checks at API Gateway before backend…. That capability resolves the key constraint.
4. API Gateway HTTP API offers a lower-cost RESTful frontend with built-in JWT authorizers, OIDC support, CORS, and automatic deployments. Here, A REST API should reject requests…. The design must enforce request-shape checks at API Gateway before backend…. Another service owns the behavior being tested.

 

Question 19

A read-heavy public catalog API repeatedly serves identical responses for the same request. The backend is expensive, and short-lived cached responses are acceptable. Which design choice best reduce repeated backend calls by caching eligible API responses at the gateway? Choose ONE.

1. API Gateway HTTP API
2. REST API response caching
3. EventBridge archive and replay
4. Amazon SQS standard queue

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. API Gateway HTTP API offers a lower-cost RESTful frontend with built-in JWT authorizers, OIDC support, CORS, and automatic deployments. Here, A read-heavy public catalog API repeatedly…. The design must reduce repeated backend calls by caching eligible API…. The scenario needs a capability this choice does not supply.
2. REST API response caching stores eligible REST API responses at the API stage to reduce repeated backend calls for cacheable requests. Here, A read-heavy public catalog API repeatedly…. The design must reduce repeated backend calls by caching eligible API…. That choice fits the resilience objective.
3. EventBridge archive and replay stores selected events from one event bus and can later replay a chosen time range back to that source bus. Here, A read-heavy public catalog API repeatedly…. The design must reduce repeated backend calls by caching eligible API…. The requirement calls for different managed-service semantics.
4. Amazon SQS standard queue stores messages durably so independent consumers can absorb variable producer rates with at-least-once delivery and very high throughput. Here, A read-heavy public catalog API repeatedly…. The design must reduce repeated backend calls by caching eligible API…. That option would not change the behavior that matters here.

 

Question 20

A DynamoDB stream feeds a managed pipe. After filtering, the records should reach several independently managed EventBridge rules and targets rather than one fixed target path. Which design choice best send pipe output to an event bus so multiple rules can fan the records to different consumers? Choose ONE.

1. SNS topic with separate SQS subscriptions
2. Amazon EventBridge Pipes
3. EventBridge rule with one independently managed target
4. EventBridge Pipes to event bus for fan-out

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. SNS topic with separate SQS subscriptions gives each consumer its own durable backlog while a single publication is fanned out to all subscribed queues. Here, A DynamoDB stream feeds a managed…. The design must send pipe output to an event bus so…. It solves a related problem, not this requirement.
2. Amazon EventBridge Pipes connects a supported source to one target with optional filtering, transformation, batching, and synchronous enrichment. Here, A DynamoDB stream feeds a managed…. The design must send pipe output to an event bus so…. It cannot directly provide the delivery behavior being selected.
3. EventBridge rule with one independently managed target keeps each target behind its own rule so routing, filtering, and target changes can evolve independently. Here, A DynamoDB stream feeds a managed…. The design must send pipe output to an event bus so…. The component serves another purpose in the architecture.
4. EventBridge Pipes to event bus for fan-out moves records from a supported source into an event bus where multiple independent rules can fan them to consumers. Here, A DynamoDB stream feeds a managed…. The design must send pipe output to an event bus so…. It directly addresses the architecture decision.

• < Amazon AWS SAA-C03 Event-Driven Architectures, APIs, Queues, Messaging, and Workflow Orchestration Practice Test 2
• Amazon AWS SAA-C03 Elastic Scaling, Load Balancing, Containers, Serverless, and Microservices Practice Test 1 >