To ensure that this story can be developed effectively, you should take two recommended steps:

• Maintain a communication schedule with the third-party resources. Communication is key when working on an integration involving a third-party system, as it can help to clarify the requirements, expectations, and dependencies of both parties. By maintaining a communication schedule, you can ensure that you have regular and timely updates on the progress, issues, and feedback of the integration. You can also use communication tools, such as email, chat, or video conferencing, to facilitate the communication and collaboration between your Appian team and the third-party resources.
• Break down the item into smaller stories. Breaking down a large and complex story into smaller and simpler stories can help to make the development process more manageable and efficient. By breaking down the item into smaller stories, you can reduce the scope and complexity of each story, and focus on delivering one feature or functionality at a time. You can also prioritize and assign the stories to different developers, and track their status and completion more easily.

The other options are not as effective. Option A, acquiring testing steps from QA resources, is not a step to ensure that the story can be developed effectively, but rather a step to ensure that the story can be tested effectively. Option B, identifying subject matter experts (SMEs) to perform user acceptance testing (UAT), is also not a step to ensure that the story can be developed effectively, but rather a step to ensure that the story can be validated effectively. Option E, adding a view that joins the customer data to the data used in calculation, is not a step to ensure that the story can be developed effectively, but rather a design decision that may or may not be appropriate for the integration.

• D. The join between the tables order_detail and product needs to be fine-tuned due to Indices. This is correct because the result of the explain statement showsthat the join between these two tables has a high cost of 0.99, which indicates that it is inefficient and needs to be fine-tuned. One possible reason for the high cost is that there are no indices on the columns that are used for joining these two tables, which leads to a full table scan. Therefore, creating indices on these columns could improve the performance of this join.
• E. The worst join is the one between the table order_detail and customer. This is correct because the result of the explain statement shows that the join between these two tables has a very high cost of 1.00, which indicates that it is the worst join in terms of efficiency and needs to be fine-tuned. One possible reason for the high cost is that there are no indices on the columns that are used for joining these two tables, which leads to a full table scan. Therefore, creating indices on these columns could improve the performance of this join.

The other options are incorrect for the following reasons:

• A. The request is good enough to support a high volume of data, but could demonstrate some limitations if the developer queries information related to the product. This is incorrect because the request is not good enough to support a high volume of data, as it has two joins with very high costs that need to be fine-tuned. Moreover, querying information related to the product would not necessarily cause any limitations, as long as the join between order_detail and product is optimized.
• B. The worst join is the one between the table order_detail and order. This is incorrect because the result of the explain statement shows that the join between these two tables has a low cost of 0.01, which indicates that it is efficient and does not need to be fine-tuned.
• C. The join between the tables order_detail, order and customer needs to be fine-tuned due to indices. This is incorrect because there is no such join between three tables in the result of the explain statement. There are only two joins: one between order_detail and order, and another between order_detail and customer. Each of these joins needs to be fine-tuned separately due to indices.

Requirement: Archive processes 2 days after completion or cancellation. Correct match: A. Processes that need to be available for 2 days after completion or cancellation, after which are no longer required nor accessible Exact explanation of correct match taken from Appian Documentation: This strategy is called “Archive after 2 days” and it is one of the options for process model data management in Appian. This strategy means that processes that complete or cancel will remain available for 2 days, after which they will be archived and no longer accessible. This strategy can help reduce the size of the process database and improve the performance of process reporting.

Requirement: Use system default (currently auto-archive processes 7 days after completion or cancellation). Correct match: C. Processes that remain available for 7 days after completion or cancellation, after which are archived when accessed Exact explanation of correct match taken from Appian Documentation: This strategy is called “Use system default” and it is one of the options for process model data management in Appian. This strategy means that processes that complete or cancel will remain available for 7 days, after which they will be archived when accessed. This strategy can help balance the availability and performance of process data, as it allows processes to be archived on demand rather than on a fixed schedule.

Requirement: Delete processes 2 days after completion or cancellation. Correct match: B. Processes that need to be available for 2 days after completion or cancellation, after which remain accessible Exact explanation of correct match taken from Appian Documentation: This strategy is called “Delete after 2 days” and it is one of the options for process model data management in Appian. This strategy means that processes that complete or cancel will remain available for 2 days, after which they will be deleted and no longer accessible. This strategy can help reduce the size of the process database and improve the performance of process reporting, but it also means that process data will be permanently lost.

Requirement: Do not automatically clean-up processes. Correct match: D. Processes that need to remain available without the need to unarchive Exact explanation of correct match taken from Appian Documentation: This strategy is called “Do not automatically clean-up” and it is one of the options for process model data management in Appian. This strategy means that processes that complete or cancel will remain available indefinitely without being archived or deleted. This strategy can help ensure the availability and integrity of process data, but it also means that the process database will grow over time and affect the performance of process reporting.

The field would benefit greatly from the index in the following scenarios:

• A. The field contains a textual short Business code. This is a scenario where an index can improve the performance of queries that search for exact matches or ranges of values in the field. A textual short Business code is likely to have high cardinality, meaning that it has many distinct values and low duplication. This makes the index more selective and efficient, as it can quickly narrow down the results based on the search criteria.
• C. The field contains many datetimes, covering a large range. This is a scenario where an index can improve the performance of queries that search for exact matches or ranges of values in the field. A datetime field is likely to have high cardinality, meaning that it has many distinct values and low duplication. This makes the index more selective and efficient, as it can quickly narrow down the results based on the search criteria.
• D. The field contains big integers, above and below 0. This is a scenario where an index can improve the performance of queries that search for exact matches or ranges of values in the field. A big integer field is likely to have high cardinality, meaning that it has many distinct values and low duplication. This makes the index more selective and efficient, as it can quickly narrow down the results based on the search criteria.

The other options are incorrect for the following reasons:

• B. The field contains long unstructured text such as a hash. This is a scenario where an index might not improve the performance of queries that search for exact matches or ranges of values in the field. A long unstructured text field is likely to have low cardinality, meaning that it has few distinct values and high duplication. This makes the index less selective and efficient, as it cannot quickly narrow down the results based on the search criteria. Moreover, indexing a long unstructured text field could increase thestorage space and maintenance cost for the database, which could affect the overall performance.
• E. The field contains a structured JSON. This is a scenario where an index might not improve the performance of queries that search for exact matches or ranges of values in the field. A structured JSON field is not a native data type in MySQL, and it requires special functions or operators to access or manipulate its elements. Indexing a structured JSON field could increase the complexity and overhead for the database, which could affect the overall performance. Verified References: Appian Documentation, section “Query Optimization”.