Q: 1
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 are creating a cloud flow that will use two Update Row actions to interact with Microsoft
Dataverse. Neither of these actions are dependent on each other.
You must minimize the amount of processing time require to complete the flow.
You need to implement the actions in the cloud flow.
Solution: Create a parallel branch for the two Update Row actions.
Does the solution meet the goal?
Options
Discussion
Option A, saw a similar setup in exam reports and parallel branches are the way to minimize time here.
Option A here. Parallel branches let both Update Row actions run simultaneously, which is the best way to save time if they aren't linked. Some might pick B thinking about possible data locks, but with no dependencies mentioned A fits. Let me know if you disagree.
I don't think B is right here, since a lot of folks get tripped up thinking Dataverse will queue parallel requests more slowly. Option A should be correct because putting the two Update Row actions in parallel means they're handled together, not one after another. Only a sequencing requirement would make me question it.
Its A. Since the two Update Row actions are independent, parallel branches will cut processing time instead of running sequentially.
Maybe A, unless Dataverse had some concurrency problem not mentioned here.
Minimizing processing time definitely fits with A here. Parallel branches let those two Update Row actions run side by side, instead of waiting for one to finish before starting the other. The only catch is if there was something about Dataverse throttling, but since that's not mentioned, pretty sure A is right. Anyone see a scenario where B would make sense?
Why would you not use parallel branches here if there's no dependency?
A for me. Since the two Update Row actions don't depend on each other, putting them in a parallel branch will let them run at the same time and cut the total flow time. I think that's what Power Automate is meant to do, but open to correction if I'm missing something.
I see why people pick A, but I actually think B. Running the updates in sequence seems faster because Dataverse sometimes queues requests. Not sure if parallel branches really save time here, especially if there's any throttling.
A is right here because parallel branches let both actions run at the same time, which cuts down overall processing. As long as those updates aren’t connected, there’s no reason to wait. Pretty sure this matches how Power Automate works. Anybody see a real scenario where B would be faster?
Be respectful. No spam.
