DP-800 Microsoft Developing AI-Enabled Database Solutions Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

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 correct SARGable pattern for filtering a single calendar day is to use a half-open date range :

o.CreateDate > = @StartDate

AND o.CreateDate < @EndDate

with:

SET @EndDate = DATEADD(day, 1, @StartDate)

This is the correct design because it keeps the function off the column and applies it only to the parameter. That allows SQL Server and Azure SQL to use an index on CreateDate efficiently, which is the key requirement for a SARGable predicate. Microsoft documents DATEADD as the standard function for adding one day to a date value, which makes it the right way to derive the exclusive upper boundary for the next day.

The incorrect choices are the ones that wrap CreateDate in CONVERT(...), because expressions like:

CONVERT(char(10), CreateDate, 121) = ...

make the predicate non-SARGable and typically prevent efficient seeks on an index over CreateDate.

So the completed procedure is:

CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.usp_SearchOrders

@StartDate date

AS

BEGIN

SET NOCOUNT ON;

DECLARE @EndDate date;

SET @EndDate = DATEADD(day, 1, @StartDate);

SELECT o.CreateDate,

o.OrderId,

o.ShipDate

FROM dbo.Orders AS o

WHERE o.CreateDate > = @StartDate

AND o.CreateDate < @EndDate;

END;

The table definition allows Owner to be nullable because it was created as Owner nvarchar(100) without NOT NULL. Since the question asks what to add so that future rows must have a value, a check constraint such as CHECK (Owner IS NOT NULL) is the appropriate choice. Microsoft documents that check constraints validate future INSERT and UPDATE operations against the constraint condition.

The other options do not solve the requirement:

A foreign key enforces referential integrity, not non-null entry by itself.

A nonclustered index does not require values to be present.

A unique constraint prevents duplicate values but still does not serve as the right mechanism here for enforcing presence across future writes. Microsoft’s constraint documentation also notes that primary-key columns are implicitly NOT NULL, which helps distinguish nullability enforcement from other constraint types.

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.

The requirement says the stored values and query inputs must both be protected, and users must not be able to infer relationships or repetitions in the data from the encrypted output. Microsoft documents that deterministic encryption always produces the same ciphertext for the same plaintext , which allows equality comparisons but also leaks patterns. By contrast, randomized encryption produces a different encrypted value each time for the same plaintext, which improves security and prevents pattern analysis based on repeated ciphertext values.

That makes randomized encryption the right choice here:

It protects data at rest and in transit/query parameters under Always Encrypted’s client-side encryption model.

It prevents attackers from learning that the same plaintext value appears repeatedly, because repeated inputs do not produce repeated ciphertext.

Why the other options are wrong:

A. Always Encrypted with secure enclaves adds richer confidential query support, but the key protection property the question is testing is the encryption type. The requirement to prevent inference from repeated ciphertext points specifically to randomized encryption .

C. RLS controls row access, not value confidentiality.

D. Deterministic encryption allows equality-based operations but leaks repetition patterns, which the question explicitly forbids.

Because the SQL Server 2025 instance has no outbound network connectivity , the embedding model cannot rely on a remote REST endpoint such as Azure AI Foundry or Azure OpenAI. Microsoft’s CREATE EXTERNAL MODEL documentation includes a local deployment pattern using ONNX Runtime running locally with local runtime/model paths . That is the right design when embeddings must be generated inside the SQL Server instance without external network access. Microsoft explicitly documents a local ONNX Runtime example for SQL Server 2025 and notes the required local runtime setup and model path configuration.

The permission requirement is handled by granting the application user access to use the external embeddings model. Microsoft’s AI_GENERATE_EMBEDDINGS documentation states that, as a prerequisite, you must create an external model of type EMBEDDINGS that is accessible via the correct grants, roles, and/or permissions . Among the choices, the exam-appropriate action is to grant execute permission on the external model project to AlApplicationUser so only that database user can run embedding generation through the model.

The package named Microsoft.SqlServer.Dacpacs.Master is the generic master system DACPAC package, but the question requires the correct system objects for Azure SQL Database . Microsoft’s system-objects documentation distinguishes platform-specific system references, and for Azure SQL Database the correct package is the Azure-specific master DACPAC , not the generic master package.

So adding Microsoft.SqlServer.Dacpacs.Master does not meet the goal for an Azure SQL Database-targeted SDK-style project. The expected package is the Azure-specific one.

Serialize the order-level JSON : FOR JSON PATH

Generate a nested lines array : JSON_QUERY

Extract a single scalar value from the JSON text : JSON_VALUE

The correct mapping is based on how SQL Server and Azure SQL JSON functions are designed to shape relational data into JSON for AI and RAG scenarios.

To serialize the order-level JSON , use FOR JSON PATH . Microsoft documents that FOR JSON PATH gives you full control over the JSON output shape and formats the result as an array of JSON objects . It is the standard way to turn relational query results into the JSON structure needed by downstream consumers such as APIs and LLM-based RAG services. It also supports nested output through subqueries and aliases.

To generate a nested lines array , use JSON_QUERY . Microsoft explains that JSON_QUERY returns a JSON object or array from JSON text, and it is used when you want to preserve a JSON fragment instead of treating it as plain text. In this scenario, the nested lines property must be emitted as a proper JSON array inside each order document, so JSON_QUERY is the correct command to embed that array in the final JSON shape.

To extract a single scalar value from the JSON text , use JSON_VALUE . Microsoft explicitly states that JSON_VALUE extracts a scalar value from a JSON string, while JSON_QUERY is for objects or arrays. So whenever the requirement is to pull out one property such as an order number, currency code, or customer ID from JSON text, JSON_VALUE is the correct function.

The unused commands are not the best fit here:

OPENJSON is primarily for parsing JSON into rows and columns, not for shaping relational tables into nested output.

JSON_MODIFY is for updating JSON text, not generating the required output structure.

So the drag-and-drop answers are:

Serialize the order-level JSON → FOR JSON PATH

Generate a nested lines array → JSON_QUERY

Extract a single scalar value from the JSON text → JSON_VALUE

JSON_VALUE(f.FeedbackJson, ' $.text ' ) AS FeedbackText

CONTAINS(FeedbackJson, @Keyword)

SimilarityScore

These three selections are the correct way to complete the query because they align exactly with the stated requirements for the FeedbackJson column.

First, to extract the customer feedback text from the JSON document , the correct expression is JSON_VALUE(f.FeedbackJson, ' $.text ' ) AS FeedbackText . Microsoft documents that JSON_VALUE is used to extract a scalar value from JSON, while JSON_QUERY is used for returning an object or array . Since $.text is the textual feedback string, JSON_VALUE is the correct function.

Second, to filter rows where the JSON text contains a keyword , the best choice is CONTAINS(FeedbackJson, @Keyword) . The scenario explicitly states that FeedbackJson already has a full-text index , and Microsoft documents that CONTAINS is the full-text predicate used in the WHERE clause to search full-text indexed character data. That makes it more appropriate than using EDIT_DISTANCE for keyword filtering.

Third, to order the results by similarity score, highest first , the correct item is SimilarityScore in the ORDER BY clause, which would be paired with DESC in the query. This matches the requirement to sort by the computed fuzzy similarity value. The DP-800 study guide specifically includes writing queries that use fuzzy string matching functions such as EDIT_DISTANCE, which supports the earlier computed SimilarityScore expression in the query.

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 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 best recommendation is to use an MCP server . In the official DP-800 study guide , Microsoft explicitly lists skills such as configuring Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool options in a GitHub Copilot session and connecting to MCP server endpoints, including Microsoft SQL Server and Fabric Lakehouse . That makes MCP the exam-aligned mechanism for enabling AI-assisted tools to work with live database context rather than static snapshots.

This also matches the stated development requirement: the team will use Visual Studio Code and GitHub Copilot and needs to retrieve live metadata from the databases . Microsoft’s documentation for GitHub Copilot with the MSSQL extension explains that Copilot works with an active database connection , provides schema-aware suggestions , supports chatting with a connected database, and adapts responses based on the current database context . Microsoft also documents MCP as the standard way for AI tools to connect to external systems and data sources through discoverable tools and endpoints.

The other options do not satisfy the “live metadata” requirement as well:

A .dacpac is a point-in-time schema artifact, not live metadata.

A Copilot instruction file provides guidance, not live database discovery.

Including the database project in the repository helps source control and deployment, but it still does not provide live database metadata by itself.

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 .

ON → m.maintenanceId = i.maintenanceId

WHERE → m.LastModifiedUtc <</b> > i.LastModifiedUtc

The correct drag-and-drop completion is:

ON m.maintenanceId = i.maintenanceId

WHERE m.LastModifiedUtc < > i.LastModifiedUtc

This satisfies the requirement to ensure that when a row in MaintenanceEvents changes, the corresponding LastModifiedUtc value is updated to the current system time, while also helping avoid unnecessary repeat updates.

The inserted pseudo-table in a SQL Server AFTER UPDATE trigger contains the rows that were just updated. To update the matching row in the base table correctly, the trigger must join the target table row to the corresponding row in inserted by the table’s primary key. In this schema, MaintenanceId is the primary key for MaintenanceEvents, so the correct join is m.maintenanceId = i.maintenanceId . Joining on VehicleId would be incorrect because multiple maintenance rows could exist for the same vehicle, which could update unintended rows. Microsoft’s trigger documentation explains that inserted and deleted are used to work with the affected rows and that multi-row logic should be based on proper key matching.

The WHERE m.LastModifiedUtc < > i.LastModifiedUtc predicate is used to prevent the trigger from re-updating rows where the timestamp already matches the value in inserted. That reduces redundant writes and supports the requirement to avoid recursive or repeated update behavior. In practice, this means the trigger updates only rows whose current stored timestamp differs from the just-updated version. This is the exam-appropriate pattern for a self-updating timestamp column in an AFTER UPDATE trigger.