Home / artificial-intelligence-machine-learning / Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate / Cheat Sheet
Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate

Databricks GenAI Cheat Sheet

Databricks GenAI Assoc Tests RAG and Agent Plumbing on Databricks — Not Prompt Tricks

For engineers building retrieval and agent apps with Vector Search, MLflow, Model Serving and Agent Bricks. The shift: let the stated constraint (latency, cost, freshness, ground truth) pick the component, not the most powerful option.

Check Your Readiness →
Among the harder certs
Avg: Not published by Databricks
Pass: 750 / 1000
Most candidates understand Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate concepts — and still fail. This exam tests how you apply knowledge under pressure.

Generative AI Engineer Associate Domain Map

The current guide covers the version live since 18 March 2026. Questions mix short business scenarios with code fragments such as MLflow logging, Vector Search client calls or ai_query in SQL. Each stem names one deciding attribute, like vector count, update frequency, latency or whether expected answers exist.

  1. 01
    Application Development (30%) — LangGraph, guardrails, model and embedding choice, MLflow Tracing, ResponsesAgent, Genie for structured data
  2. 02
    Assembling and Deploying Applications (22%) — pyfunc chains, Unity Catalog registration, Vector Search indexes, ai_query(), MCP, Prompt Registry
  3. 03
    Design Applications (14%) — structured-output prompts, task mapping, chain components, tool ordering, Agent Bricks templates
  4. 04
    Data Preparation (14%) — chunking against token limits, parsing and OCR, Delta chunk tables with Change Data Feed, retrieval metrics
  5. 05
    Evaluation and Monitoring (12%) — judges with and without ground truth, custom scorers, inference and usage tables, Agent Monitoring
  6. 06
    Governance (8%) — masking, prompt-injection defences, data licensing, cleaning problematic source text

Wrong instinct vs correct approach

The correct chunk usually sits around rank 12 of 20, but the LLM only receives the top 5
✕ Wrong instinct

Increase top-k so more chunks reach the prompt

✓ Correct approach

Recall is fine; ranking is the weakness. Add a re-ranking stage to reorder candidates by relevance. A reranker cannot help when the right chunk is absent, and a larger top-k only adds noise and tokens.

A team must fill a Delta table with renewal dates and liability caps from weekly supplier contracts
✕ Wrong instinct

Deploy Agent Bricks Knowledge Assistant over the contracts

✓ Correct approach

Knowledge Assistant returns cited chat answers. Agent Bricks Information Extraction is the managed template that turns unstructured documents into structured fields, which is exactly the rows-and-columns output the scenario asks for.

400 million embeddings refreshed weekly, users tolerate extra latency, and lowering cost is the main goal
✕ Wrong instinct

Standard endpoint with continuous sync

✓ Correct approach

Pick a storage-optimized Vector Search endpoint, built for very large vector counts at lower cost with somewhat higher latency, and use triggered sync after each weekly refresh. Continuous sync runs constantly and costs more.

A LangGraph support agent returns wrong refund amounts and nobody knows which step fails
✕ Wrong instinct

Rewrite the system prompt to be more careful with numbers

✓ Correct approach

Enable MLflow Tracing to record each tool call, retrieval and LLM step with inputs and outputs. Traces show whether the order lookup, the retriever or the final generation produced the bad value before anything is changed.

Know these cold

  • ▸ Delta Sync index needs Change Data Feed plus a primary key; Direct Vector Access syncs nothing
  • ▸ Standard Vector Search endpoint for low latency; storage-optimized for huge vector counts at lower cost
  • ▸ Triggered sync for slow-changing sources; continuous sync only when near real-time freshness is required
  • ▸ Size chunks in tokens against the embedding model limit; overflow is silently truncated
  • ▸ Recall at k measures coverage, precision at k measures noise; MRR and NDCG reward early hits
  • ▸ Pay-per-token for variable load; provisioned throughput for predictable performance and fine-tuned models
  • ▸ In a pyfunc PythonModel, load heavy clients once in load_context, never inside predict
  • ▸ Code-based scorers for deterministic checks like valid JSON; custom LLM judges for subjective criteria
  • ▸ Genie spaces answer sums and trends over tables; Vector Search retrieves passages from documents
  • ▸ Prefer managed MCP servers for Genie, Vector Search and UC functions; build custom only for bespoke tools

Can you answer these without checking your notes?

In this scenario: "The correct chunk usually sits around rank 12 of 20, but the LLM only receives the top 5" — what should you do first?
Recall is fine; ranking is the weakness. Add a re-ranking stage to reorder candidates by relevance. A reranker cannot help when the right chunk is absent, and a larger top-k only adds noise and tokens.
In this scenario: "A team must fill a Delta table with renewal dates and liability caps from weekly supplier contracts" — what should you do first?
Knowledge Assistant returns cited chat answers. Agent Bricks Information Extraction is the managed template that turns unstructured documents into structured fields, which is exactly the rows-and-columns output the scenario asks for.
In this scenario: "400 million embeddings refreshed weekly, users tolerate extra latency, and lowering cost is the main goal" — what should you do first?
Pick a storage-optimized Vector Search endpoint, built for very large vector counts at lower cost with somewhat higher latency, and use triggered sync after each weekly refresh. Continuous sync runs constantly and costs more.

Common Exam Mistakes — What candidates get wrong

Creating a Delta Sync index on a table without Change Data Feed

Delta Sync Vector Search indexes track a source Delta table, so the chunk table needs a primary key and delta.enableChangeDataFeed set. Direct Vector Access indexes never sync from tables; they are written through the API, which suits embeddings produced outside Delta.

Running a correctness judge on data that has no expected answers

Correctness and retrieval sufficiency compare output with ground truth. Groundedness, relevance to query, retrieval relevance and safety are label-free, so those are the judges that work in production monitoring, where live requests never carry expected facts.

Promoting a Unity Catalog model by stage instead of by alias

Models registered under a catalog.schema.model name have no Staging or Production stages. Assign an alias such as champion and load with models:/name@champion. Registration also needs a signature and input example, and a bare two-level name fails.

Looping over a real-time endpoint for offline bulk scoring

When millions of rows need inference and nobody waits on the result, ai_query() in SQL runs it in parallel against a serving endpoint and writes back to a table. Real-time endpoints called from Python loops are meant for interactive traffic.

Querying inference tables to attribute token spend to teams

Inference tables store request and response payloads for debugging and evaluation. Token and request consumption by caller lives in the AI Gateway usage tracking system tables, which are the source for chargeback; rate limits then cap spend per user or endpoint.

Resources to help you pass Databricks Generative AI Engineer Associate on your first attempt

Check whether you can match Vector Search, serving and judges to each stated constraint.