Exam PL-300 All QuestionsBrowse all questions from this exam
Go to Exam
Question 64

Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals. Some question sets might have more than one correct solution, while others might not have a correct solution.

After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return to it. As a result, these questions will not appear in the review screen.

You have a Power BI report that imports a date table and a sales table from an Azure SQL database data source. The sales table has the following date foreign keys:

✑ Due Date

✑ Order Date

✑ Delivery Date

You need to support the analysis of sales over time based on all the date foreign keys.

Solution: From Power Query Editor, you rename the date query as Due Date. You reference the Due Date query twice to make the queries for Order Date and

Delivery Date.

Does this meet the goal?

    Correct Answer: A

    Renaming the date query as Due Date and referencing it twice to create Order Date and Delivery Date queries in Power Query Editor allows you to use role-playing dimensions in your analysis. This method creates three separate date tables, each associated with one of the date foreign keys in the sales table. This setup allows for creating active relationships in the data model and enables analysis over time based on each of the different date roles (Due Date, Order Date, Delivery Date) independently. Thus, this solution meets the goal of supporting the analysis of sales over time based on all the date foreign keys.

Discussion
junaid2107

I dont understand What micorsoft hopes to achieve with trick questions. If questions leave so much to the analysts assumptions then the questions isnt testing the candidates knowledge

MoxieTT

I keep reading "trick" questions when reading peoples' experiences recently of PL-300.

cs3122

100% agree. There is so much ambiguity in the questions, and can easily be interpreted ways.

legionairemaxOption: B

The answer is correct. However, I believe the alternate solution given is wrong. I would say that 3 relationships for each date respectively would be made from the Date table to the Sales table. One being active and the other two inactive. Thus, allowing to filter by a specific date column The solution suggested is not required, as the report does not require any output that involves all 3 dates. It requires only sales over one date column at a time. Moreover, being date tables, they can significantly increase the size of the model (considering that the table is sales related).

SamuComqiOption: A

I passed the exam today (948/1000). My answer was: - Yes

umairtaqi

Please confirm the answer.

8b24250

these 250 questions sufficient to clear exam?

ManiulaOption: A

A. Again, this was in the learning path, duplicate date tables with DAX or PowerQuery.

IgetmyroleOption: B

B is the correct answer. No, this solution does not meet the goal of supporting the analysis of sales over time based on all the date foreign keys. Renaming the date query as "Due Date" and referencing it twice in Power Query Editor does not create relationships between the sales table and the date table based on the difference date foreign keys (Due Date, Order Date, and Delivery Date).

prikha16Option: A

I would say Yes, It does meet the goal though it may not be the ideal solution. The question doesn't state anything about reducing model size etc.. it just says it should support the required analysis. There is no confusion here, it is a case of role- playing dimensions and the solution would work.

rgabageOption: A

A. This was in the learning path.

Elektrolite

link, or gtfo

DsbuffOption: A

A is correct. ChatGPT's response: Creating separate queries in Power Query for each date (Due Date, Order Date, and Delivery Date) by referencing a base date query is a recommended way to deal with role-playing dimensions. This method involves creating separate date tables for each date role you need to analyze. In Power BI, each of these tables will be related to the sales table using the respective date foreign key. This approach allows for creating active relationships between the sales table and each of the date tables, which enables the use of these dates in filters, slicers, and visuals without the need for DAX measures to handle inactive relationships. It is a common and efficient way to support analysis by different date roles within the same model.

BadadadiiiiOption: A

The key to answering this question correct, is this sentence "You need to support the analysis of sales over time based on all the date foreign keys." You cannot achieve this without 3 date tables, which is created in Power Query. 1 is loaded from Azure, the other two are created by reference to the first. If you have one date table with 1 active and 2 inactive relationships, then you won't be able to use all 3 dates in the same analysis.

MEG_FloridaOption: B

I am going with B and here is why. It says they renamed it. Then they said they used it for 2 of the dates, not all 3. So technically there isn't 3 queries being run just 2... Thoughts?

og44

I gues whwn you reference twice, it means you are adding two aditional copies, hence you have 3 tables. But as the question does not talk about relationship, that is the source of ambiguity.

GowthamMupparapuOption: A

Please suggest if my thought process is not aligned with the question's constraints. As it is said in the proposed solution cant we reference the initial date table 2 more times to obtain other date tables ?? (By renaming the tables and deleting other two irrelevant columns)

burtoOption: B

wouldnt it be that since they are imported datasets it would be more productive to use DAX to transform the data?

WRTopicsOption: B

I'll select B.

ageleeOption: B

I think B. Nothing said about USERELATIONSHIP. Without mentioning it I think the answer is NO.

bc23451Option: B

I think it's B because Due Date come after Order Date so if we reference with the Due Date, you may not have all date for Order Date. That's my point of view.

jsav1Option: A

It gives you three separate date tables but without having to import the date data 3 times.

miro26Option: B

In such a scenario, I wonder if it makes sense to import a time dimension at all. Better to create three dimensions based on calculated tables like here (https://www.sqlbi.com/articles/creating-a-simple-date-table-in-dax/)

ApacheKafka

In the documentation, It is advised that. You always use the provided date table if available. Only in situations where they dont exist should you create a calculated date table.