A table in the Lakehouse namedcustomer_churn_paramsis used in churn prediction by the machine learning team.

The approach that would simplify the identification of the changed records is to replace the current overwrite logic with a merge statement to modify only those records that have changed, and write logic to make predictions on the changed records identified by the change data feed. This approach leverages the Delta Lake features of merge and change data feed, which are designed to handle upserts and track row-level changes in a Delta table12. By using merge, the data engineering team can avoid overwriting the entire table every night, and only update or insert the records that have changed in the source data. By using change data feed, the ML team can easily access the change events that have occurred in the customer_churn_params table, and filter them by operation type (update or insert) and timestamp. This way, they can only make predictions on the records that have changed in the past 24 hours, and avoid re-processing the unchanged records.

The other options are not as simple or efficient as the proposed approach, because:

Option A would require applying the churn model to all rows in the customer_churn_params table, which would be wasteful and redundant. It would also require implementing logic to perform an upsert into the predictions table, which would be more complex than using the merge statement.

Option B would require converting the batch job to a Structured Streaming job, which would involve changing the data ingestion and processing logic. It would also require using the complete output mode, which would output the entire result table every time there is a change in the source data, which would be inefficient and costly.

Option C would require calculating the difference between the previous model predictions and the current customer_churn_params on a key identifying unique customers, which would be computationally expensive and prone to errors. It would also require storing and accessing the previous predictions, which would add extra storage and I/O costs.

Option D would require modifying the overwrite logic to include a field populated by calling spark.sql.functions.current_timestamp() as data are being written, which would add extra complexity and overhead to the data engineering job. It would also require using this field to identify records written on a particular date, which would be less accurate and reliable than using the change data feed.

References: Merge, Change data feed