An application uses Amazon Aurora MySQL. CloudWatch shows the writer instance near 85% CPU while the only reader instance averages 15% CPU. Trace logs show that all SELECT statements still target the writer endpoint. The workload is read-heavy, and the application already tolerates eventual consistency for reads. Which two changes will best increase total read throughput without a schema redesign? Select two.

Convert the cluster to a single-AZ RDS MySQL instance to reduce replication overhead.

This would remove Aurora’s read-scaling architecture and reduce availability. A single-AZ instance also concentrates all traffic on one node, which is the opposite of what this workload needs. It may reduce replication complexity, but it does not increase read throughput.

Replace the writer endpoint with the instance endpoint of the primary node to speed up SELECT queries.

The primary writer is already the bottleneck in the scenario. Sending more SELECT traffic to the writer endpoint or its instance endpoint increases contention on the busiest node and does not add any new read capacity. That choice worsens the current CPU imbalance.

Add Amazon ElastiCache and move all database writes into the cache layer.

A cache can offload some read traffic, but it is not a substitute for the database for transactional writes. Moving writes into a cache layer would break durability and consistency guarantees. The question asks for a direct Aurora read-scaling fix without schema redesign, so replica-based scaling is the right approach.

What does this SAA-C03 question test?

Static NAT maps one inside address to one outside address.

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: Point read-only queries to the Aurora reader endpoint instead of the writer endpoint. — The writer is overloaded because read traffic is being sent to the writer endpoint instead of the reader endpoint. Moving SELECT statements to the reader endpoint immediately uses the existing replica capacity, and adding more Aurora Replicas increases total read throughput further. Together, these changes directly address the read bottleneck while preserving the current design and the application’s tolerance for eventual consistency. Converting to a single-AZ RDS instance reduces resilience and removes Aurora read-scaling benefits. Sending more traffic to the writer endpoint worsens the bottleneck. ElastiCache can help some read patterns, but it does not replace the database for writes and is not the most direct answer to this Aurora read-scaling issue.

What should I do if I get this SAA-C03 question wrong?

Then try more questions from the same exam bank and focus on understanding why the wrong options are tempting.