DP-800 Sample Questions Answers

The two correct actions are D and E because the ingestion failures are caused by malformed JSON and duplicate payloads , and these two controls address those two problems directly. Microsoft’s JSON documentation states that SQL Server and Azure SQL support validating JSON with ISJSON , and Microsoft specifically recommends using a CHECK constraint to ensure JSON text stored in a column is properly formatted.

For the duplicate-payload issue, creating a unique index on a hash of the payload is the appropriate design. Microsoft documents using hashing functions such as HASHBYTES to hash column values, and SQL Server allows a deterministic computed column to be used as a key column in a UNIQUE constraint or unique index . That makes a persisted hash-based computed column plus a unique index a practical and exam-consistent way to reject duplicate payloads efficiently.

The other options do not solve the stated root causes:

Snapshot isolation addresses concurrency behavior, not malformed JSON or duplicate payload detection.

A trigger to rewrite malformed JSON is not the right integrity control and is brittle.

Foreign key constraints enforce referential integrity, not JSON validity or duplicate-payload prevention

The best recommendation is B because the slow query filters on FleetId and returns LastUpdatedUtc , EngineStatus , and BatteryHealth . A nonclustered index with FleetId as the key column allows the optimizer to perform an index seek instead of a clustered index scan, and including the other selected columns makes the index covering , which reduces extra lookups and I/O. Microsoft’s SQL Server indexing guidance states that a nonclustered index with included columns can significantly improve performance when all query columns are available in the index, because the optimizer can satisfy the query directly from the index.

The query is:

SELECT VehicleId, LastUpdatedUtc, EngineStatus, BatteryHealth

FROM dbo.VehicleHealthSummary

WHERE FleetId = @FleetId

ORDER BY LastUpdatedUtc DESC;

Among the given choices, FleetId is the most important search argument because it appears in the WHERE predicate. Microsoft’s index design guidance recommends putting columns used for searching in the key and using nonkey included columns to cover the rest of the query efficiently.

Why the other options are weaker:

A is not appropriate because changing the clustered index to LastUpdatedUtc would not target the main filter predicate on FleetId, and a table can have only one clustered index.

C makes LastUpdatedUtc the key, which is poor for a query whose primary filter is FleetId.

D is not the right answer here because the query requirement does not specify only recent rows, and filtered indexes are meant for a well-defined subset; this option also uses a time-based expression that is not aligned to the stated query pattern.

Strictly speaking, the most optimal design for both filtering and ordering would usually be a composite key like (FleetId, LastUpdatedUtc), but since that is not one of the available options, B is the correct exam answer.

The first statement is No . The requirement says telemetry data must be stored in a partitioned table to provide predictable performance for ingestion and retention operations. However, the shown CREATE TABLE statement does not define a partition function or partition scheme, and the table is created with a regular clustered primary key on TelemetryId. Microsoft’s partitioning guidance states that creating a partitioned table requires a partition function , a partition scheme , and creating the table or index on that partition scheme using a partitioning column. None of that appears in the code, so the table is not partitioned.

The second statement is Yes . The code creates a JSON index named JI_VehicleTelemetry_Location on LocationJson for these specific JSON paths: $.location.latitude, $.location.longitude, and $.location.accuracy. That matches the requirement that those JSON properties must be filterable by using an index seek . Microsoft documents that JSON indexing is used to optimize filtering and sorting on JSON properties, and the index only helps for the properties included in the index definition.

The third statement is No . The JSON index is defined only for latitude, longitude, and accuracy. A query filtering on $.location.heading references a different path that is not included in the index definition, so that query would not use JI_VehicleTelemetry_Location for that predicate. JSON indexes are path-specific; they do not automatically cover unrelated properties in the same JSON document.

The correct column to use for generating embeddings is incidentDescrlption because embeddings are intended to represent the semantic meaning of rich textual content , not simple categorical, numeric, or location-only values. Microsoft’s DP-800 study guide explicitly includes skills such as identifying which columns to include in embeddings , generating embeddings , and implementing semantic vector search for scenarios where users need to find similar records based on meaning rather than exact matches.

In this scenario, analysts report that it is difficult to find similar incidents based on details such as weather, traffic conditions, and location . Those are descriptive context elements that are typically captured in a free-text incident description field. An embedding generated from incidentDescrlption can encode the semantic relationships among these narrative details, making it suitable for similarity search , semantic search , and RAG retrieval . Microsoft documentation on vectors and embeddings explains that embeddings are generated from text data and then stored for vector search to find semantically related items.

The other options are weaker choices:

vehicleLocation is too narrow and usually better handled with geospatial filtering , not embeddings.

incidentType is likely categorical and too low in semantic richness.

SeverityScore is numeric and not appropriate as the primary source for semantic embeddings.

Microsoft also notes that when multiple useful attributes exist, you can either embed each text column separately or concatenate relevant text fields into one textual representation before generating the embedding. But among the options given, the best and most exam-aligned answer is the textual narrative column : incidentDescrlption .

The schema meets the security requirements for PII data. → Yes

Administrators of the Azure SQL server can see all the rows in dbo.CustomerProfiles when they use an application. → No

The masking rules will apply even when row-level security (RLS) filters out rows. → No

The first statement is Yes because the design combines two relevant SQL security controls for personally identifiable information: Dynamic Data Masking (DDM) on sensitive columns such as FullName, EmailAddress, and PhoneNumber, and Row-Level Security (RLS) to restrict which rows a user can access based on RegionCode. Microsoft documents that DDM limits sensitive data exposure for nonprivileged users , while RLS restricts row access according to the user executing the query. Together, these are valid and appropriate controls for protecting PII in Azure SQL Database.

The second statement is No . Administrative users can view unmasked data because administrative roles effectively have CONTROL, which includes UNMASK. However, that does not mean they automatically see all rows through the application query path defined by the RLS policy. The security policy filters rows based on SUSER_SNAME() and matching RegionCode, so row visibility is governed by the predicate unless the policy is altered or bypassed administratively. DDM and RLS solve different problems: DDM affects how returned values are shown, while RLS affects which rows are returned at all.

The third statement is No because masking only applies to data that is actually returned in the query result set. Microsoft describes DDM as hiding sensitive data in the result set of a query . If RLS filters a row out, that row is not returned, so there is nothing left for masking to act on. In other words, RLS eliminates inaccessible rows first from the user’s perspective, and DDM masks sensitive column values only on rows the user is allowed to see.

The correct workflow step is Option C because it uses the Azure SQL GitHub Action to publish a .dacpac file and reads the connection string from GitHub repository secrets , which is exactly what the requirement asks for. Microsoft’s Azure SQL GitHub Actions guidance shows using azure/sql-action@v2 with a connection string stored in secrets and a DACPAC path for deployment.

The key parts that make C correct are:

uses: azure/sql-action@v2

action: publish

path: bin/Debug/db1.dacpac

connection-string: ${{ secrets.SQL_CONNECTION_STRING }}

That matches the documented publish pattern for deploying a DACPAC to Azure SQL Database from GitHub Actions. Microsoft and the Azure SQL action documentation both describe Publish as the deployment action for applying a DACPAC to a target database, while Extract is used to create a DACPAC from an existing database, not deploy one.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A uses an environment variable defined inline with a visible connection string rather than using GitHub repository secrets , which does not meet the requirement.

B uses action: extract, which would create a DACPAC from a database instead of publishing the existing DACPAC artifact.

D passes a target connection string to dotnet build, but the question says the workflow already runs dotnet build and produces a database artifact . The missing step is the deployment/publish step, not another build step. Microsoft’s SQL project automation guidance separates build the DACPAC from publish the DACPAC .

The first statement is Yes . The query filters on CustomerId, applies a range predicate on OrderDate, and sorts by OrderDate DESC. Microsoft’s index design guidance recommends putting equality predicates first in the key, followed by columns used for ordering/range access, because the order of key columns determines seek and sort support. A nonclustered index on (CustomerId, OrderDate DESC) can support an ordered seek for this query and avoid the explicit sort. Including Status and TotalAmount helps cover the query, and OrderId is already available because the clustered key is stored with nonclustered index rows.

The second statement is No . Adding CustomerId as an included column to IX_Orders_OrderDate does not make it part of the index’s navigational structure. Microsoft states that included columns are nonkey columns used to cover queries; they do not provide the seek and ordering characteristics that key columns do. So an index keyed only on OrderDate still is not the right ordered access path for WHERE CustomerId = @CustomerId ... ORDER BY OrderDate DESC.

The third statement is Yes . The described actual plan shows an index seek on the wrong access path for the workload, followed by clustered key lookups and an explicit sort before TOP (50). That is characteristic of a suboptimal query/index plan . Query Store and Query Performance Insight are designed to surface plan-related performance regressions, while locking/blocking problems are typically identified through waits/DMVs and blocking-session indicators, not from a plan shape like seek + lookup + sort alone.

To speed up repeated aggregate retrieval without changing base-table structure, the right pattern is an indexed view . Microsoft requires that an indexed view be created with WITH SCHEMABINDING , and if the view uses GROUP BY , it must also include COUNT_BIG(*) . After that, the first index on the view must be a unique clustered index .

The other options fail Microsoft’s indexed-view rules:

A is invalid because ORDER BY is not allowed in the indexed-view definition.

B is invalid because indexed views require WITH SCHEMABINDING , and the first index cannot just be a nonclustered index.

C is incomplete because a grouped indexed view must include COUNT_BIG(*) .

The first correct selection is embedding because a vector index must be created on the vector column , not on a scalar distance column or a text column such as product_name. Microsoft’s CREATE VECTOR INDEX documentation shows that the index is created directly on the vector-valued column, for example ON product_embeddings(embedding).

The second correct selection is VECTOR_SEARCH because the requirement is to use a supplied natural language query vector and search against the indexed embeddings. Microsoft documents that VECTOR_SEARCH is the Transact-SQL function for approximate nearest neighbor vector retrieval and that it applies to SQL database in Microsoft Fabric as well as other supported SQL platforms.

This also matches the shown code pattern:

declare a vector variable such as @query_vector VECTOR(1536),

create a vector index on dbo.Products(embedding),

query with VECTOR_SEARCH(... SIMILAR_TO = @query_vector, METRIC = ' cosine ' , TOP_N = 10).

For an Azure App Service using a user-assigned managed identity to connect to Azure SQL Database with Microsoft Entra authentication , the required database-side step is to create a database user from the external provider , then grant the needed database roles. Microsoft’s Azure SQL documentation for managed identities states that to let a managed identity access the target database, you create a SQL user for that identity by using:

CREATE USER [ < identity-name > ] FROM EXTERNAL PROVIDER;

and then assign the appropriate roles.

That makes db_datareader and db_datawriter the right role grants here, because the requirement says the identity must have read and write permissions to SalesDB.

The other options are incorrect:

A uses CREATE LOGIN ... FROM EXTERNAL PROVIDER, which is not the right choice for this Azure SQL Database scenario; the documented pattern is to create a database user from the external provider.

B and D create SQL-authentication principals with passwords, which does not meet the Microsoft Entra managed-identity requirement.

D also grants sysadmin, which is a server-level overgrant and not appropriate for the stated read/write requirement.

For an SDK-style SQL database project targeting Azure SQL Database , Microsoft recommends using the Azure SQL system DACPAC as a NuGet package reference rather than adding a direct artifact reference to master.dacpac for new SDK-style development. Microsoft’s SQL Database Projects documentation says direct .dacpac artifact references are not recommended for new development in SDK-style projects ; instead, use NuGet package references .

Because the goal is specifically to make dotnet build validate successfully with the correct Azure SQL system objects , adding an artifact reference to master.dacpac is not the recommended SDK-style solution. It can work in some project styles, but it does not meet the stated goal as the proper approach for SDK-style Azure SQL projects.

For the vector portion, the correct choice is VECTOR_DISTANCE and order by distance ascending . The requirement is to build a combined weighted formula using the actual vector distance. Microsoft documents that VECTOR_DISTANCE returns the exact distance between two vectors. Since lower distance means greater similarity, ascending distance is the right direction for ranking. VECTOR_SEARCH is for ANN retrieval, but this hotspot specifically asks for a weighted formula based on distance , so VECTOR_DISTANCE is the appropriate operator.

For the keyword portion, the correct choice is CONTAINSTABLE on description and return ranked matches . Microsoft documents that CONTAINSTABLE returns a RANK column from 0 through 1000 , which is exactly what is needed for weighted scoring in a hybrid formula.

For the final ranking expression, the best choice is order by (distance * 0.6) + ((1.0 - RANK/1000.0) * 0.4) . This works because vector distance is a lower-is-better metric, while full-text RANK is a higher-is-better metric. Dividing RANK by 1000 normalizes it to the documented range, and subtracting from 1.0 converts it into a lower-is-better term so both components can be combined consistently in one ascending score. This final step is a sound inference based on Microsoft’s documented distance semantics and full-text rank range.

When you change embedding models, the stored vectors should be treated as belonging to a different embedding space unless you intentionally keep the entire corpus consistent. Microsoft’s vector guidance notes that when most or all embeddings are replaced with fresh embeddings from a new model, the recommended practice is to reload the new embeddings and, for large-scale replacement scenarios, consider dropping and recreating the vector index afterward so search quality remains predictable.

This question also says applications must continue to use VECTOR_SEARCH without runtime errors . VECTOR_SEARCH requires compatible vector dimensions, and the vector column already exists. Azure OpenAI documentation shows that text-embedding-ada-002 is fixed at 1536 dimensions and text-embedding-3-small supports up to 1536 dimensions . That means the migration can remain compatible with a VECTOR(1536) column, but the right implementation step is still to re-embed the existing rows so the table does not contain a mixed corpus produced by different models.

The other options are not appropriate:

B normalization does not solve a model migration problem.

C converting the vector column to nvarchar(max) would break vector-native search design.

D a vector index improves performance, but it does not migrate old embeddings to the new model.

The correct query is Option D because it starts from the input person and uses exactly two directed Knows edges in a single MATCH pattern:

MATCH(p1-(k1)- > p2-(k2)- > p3)

Microsoft documents that SQL Graph uses the MATCH predicate in the WHERE clause to express graph traversal patterns over node and edge tables, and directed relationships are written with arrow syntax such as node1-(edge)- > node2.

Why D is correct:

It anchors the starting node with p1.PersonId = @StartPersonId.

It traverses two directed hops : p1 - > p2 - > p3.

It returns p3.PersonId, p3.DisplayName, which are the people reachable in exactly two Knows relationships.

Why the others are wrong:

A filters on DisplayName = DisplayName, which is unrelated to the required input parameter and does not correctly anchor the start node.

B reverses the traversal direction in the pattern.

C uses two separate MATCH predicates instead of the required single two-hop directed pattern. The proper graph pattern syntax supports chaining the hops directly in one MATCH expression.