A team asks whether it is acceptable to keep some data in the lakehouse and continue running an existing warehouse for other workloads. How should this be assessed?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You can keep some data in the lakehouse and run the warehouse for other workloads. That's normal and common. Just make sure governance and metric definitions match, or you'll end up with conflicting answers.
Full Explanation
The acceptable answer is that coexistence is normal and common, provided governance and definitions are consistent so the two platforms do not produce conflicting answers. Organisations routinely run both, migrating workloads as the case for each is made. The genuine risk is definitional divergence: the same metric computed differently in two places produces conflicting numbers and erodes trust. Consistent governance and shared definitions are what keep coexistence workable.
The view that it is unacceptable because the lakehouse must hold all of an organisation's analytical data is wrong. The lakehouse does not require totality to deliver value, and incremental adoption is the normal path.
The view that coexistence is acceptable only if the warehouse is read-only and receives no new data is wrong. An actively used warehouse can coexist fine. Freezing it is a migration tactic, not a requirement.
The view that it is unacceptable because open table formats cannot coexist with proprietary warehouse storage is wrong. The two are independent systems. Federation can even bridge them, letting the lakehouse query warehouse tables in place.
For the exam, treat coexistence as acceptable and focus the answer on consistency of governance and definitions.