Salesforce Certified Data Architect Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 22

Async SOQL with a custom object (option B) and Einstein Analytics (option D) are the two native tools that can be used to report on big object data. Async SOQL allows querying big object data and storing the results in a custom object, which can then be used for reporting. Einstein Analytics can connect to big object data sources and provide advanced analytics and visualization features.Standard reports and dashboards (option A) and standard SOQL queries (option C) cannot be used to report on big object data, as they do not support big object fields

Implicit sharing will automatically handle this sharing requirement with standard functionality, as it grants read-only access to parent accounts when users have access to child opportunities.This is also known as account-opportunity sharing3. Creating a criteria-based sharing rule (option A) or an owner-based sharing rule (option D) is not necessary, as they are used to grant additional access based on record criteria or ownership. Adding appropriate users to the account team (option C) is also not required, as it is used to grant access to specific users or groups for individual accounts.

Integrating Salesforce with ERP and making ERP the system of truth (option B) and implementing a de-dupe solution and establishing account ownership in Salesforce (option D) are the two solutions that a data architect should recommend to resolve the complaints. Option B ensures that account data is consistent and accurate across both systems, while option D prevents duplicate records and clarifies who owns each account in Salesforce. Building a nightly batch job to de-dupe data and merge account records (option A) is not a good solution, as it does not address the root cause of the duplication and may result in data loss or conflicts. Building a nightly sync job from ERP to Salesforce (option C) is also not sufficient, as it does not prevent duplication or establish ownership in Salesforce.

Creating a unique global customer ID for each customer and storing that in all systems for referential identity (option A), investing in a data duplicate tool to de-dupe and merge duplicate records across all systems (option C), and creating a customer master database external to Salesforce as a system of truth and syncing the customer data with all systems (option E) are the three options that a data architect should perform to resolve the issues with the customer data. Option A ensures that each customer can be uniquely identified across different systems, option C eliminates duplicate records and improves data quality, and option E provides a consistent and reliable source of customer data for all systems. Using Salesforce CDC to sync customer data across all systems (option B) is not a good option, as it does not address the duplication or inconsistency issues. Duplicating customer records across the system and providing a two-way sync of data between the systems (option D) is also not a good option, as it may create more confusion and conflicts with customer data.

Service Cloud License (option C) is the license type that UC users need to fulfill UC's requirements, as it allows them to track customer complaints, provide white papers on products, and provide subscription-based support. Sales Cloud License (option A) is mainly for managing sales processes and leads, Lightning Platform Starter License (option B) is for building custom apps and workflows, and Salesforce License (option D) is a generic term that does not specify a particular license type.

Leveraging duplicate rules in Salesforce to validate duplicates during the account creation process (option A) is the best option to implement to avoid duplicates, as it allows the sales associates to identify and merge duplicate accounts before they are saved. Developing an Apex class that searches for duplicates and removes them nightly (option B) is not a good option, as it may cause data loss or conflicts, and it does not prevent duplicates from being created in the first place. Implementing an MDM solution to validate the customer information before creating Salesforce (option C) is also not a good option, as it may introduce additional complexity and cost, and it does not address the issue of customers interacting with both the website and the store. Building a custom search functionality that allows sales associates to search for customer in real time upon visiting their retail stores (option D) is also not a good option, as it may not be reliable or user-friendly, and it does not leverage the existing Global Search feature.

Changing Opportunity Amount field access to Read Only for sales users field-level security (option C) is the best way to address the overwriting issue, as it prevents sales users from updating the field that is controlled by PPS, and ensures data consistency and accuracy. Creating a custom field for Opportunity amount that PSS updates separating the field sales user updates (option A) or creating a custom field for Opportunity amount that sales users update separating the field that PPS updates (option D) are not good solutions, as they may create confusion and inconsistency with the Opportunity Forecast feature. Changing PSS integration to update only Opportunity Amount field when the value is null (option B) is also not a good solution, as it may cause data loss or conflicts with the sales users' inputs.

Enabling granular locking (option A) is the best recommendation to mitigate these errors, as it allows finer control over how records are locked during automated or manual processes, and reduces the chances of lock contention or deadlock. Removing SOQL statements from Apex Loops (option B) is a good practice for improving performance and avoiding governor limits, but it does not directly address the lock errors issue. Enabling sharing recalculations (option C) is also not relevant for this issue, as it is used to update sharing rules and recalculate access for records. Asking Salesforce support for additional CPU power (option D) is also not a viable solution, as it does not solve the root cause of the lock errors.

Creating an aggregate custom object that summarizes the monthly and yearly values into the required format for the required reports (option D) is the fastest and most effective way for a data architect to solve the time-out issue, as it reduces the amount of data that needs to be queried and processed by the reports. Creating custom fields on opportunity and copying data from order into those custom fields (option A) is not a good solution, as it may create data redundancy and inconsistency, and it does not address the large volume of data. Extracting opportunity and order data from Salesforce and using a third-party reporting tool (option B) is also not a good solution, as it may introduce additional complexity and cost, and it does not leverage the native reporting features of Salesforce. Creating a skinny table in Salesforce and copying order and opportunity fields into it (option C) is also not a good solution, as it may not support all the reporting requirements, and it does not reduce the number of records.