Pass the Microsoft Certified: SQL AI Developer DP-800 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

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 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.

A REST GET request to the order entity that includes the access token and x-MS-API-ROLE: operations will return data. → No

When DAB runs the stored procedure, the database policy defined on the FinalizeOrder entity will be enforced. → Yes

If the client omits the x-MS-API-ROLE header but still sends the same access token, the order entity read request will run in the authenticated role context. → Yes

The first statement is No . In Data API builder, when a valid token is sent with X-MS-API-ROLE, the request runs in that requested role if that role is present in the token . Here, that means the effective role becomes operations , not authenticated. But the order entity grants read only to the authenticated role, not to operations, so the GET request would not be authorized to return data.

The second statement is Yes . DAB evaluates the request against the permissions and policies configured for the effective role on the requested entity. The FinalizeOrder entity grants execute to role operations and includes a database policy of TenantId = @claims.tenantid, so that policy is part of the enforced authorization/filtering behavior when the stored procedure entity is executed.

The third statement is Yes . If the client sends a valid access token without X-MS-API-ROLE, DAB uses the built-in Authenticated system role by default. Since the order entity allows read for the authenticated role, that read request runs in the authenticated role context.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

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.

This does not meet the goal. A row-by-row DELETE against the oldest month is not the lowest-impact way to purge data from a monthly partitioned table. Microsoft’s partitioning guidance specifically says partitioning lets you perform maintenance and retention operations more efficiently by targeting just the relevant partition, including the ability to truncate data in a single partition .

The proposed statement:

DELETE FROM dbo.Orders

WHERE OrderDate < DATEADD(month, -36, SYSUTCDATETIME());

would log row deletions and can hold locks longer, creating more overhead for other queries than a partition-level maintenance operation. Since the table is already partitioned by month , the expected low-impact approach is to operate on the oldest partition directly, not issue a broad delete predicate over rows. Microsoft explicitly highlights partition-targeted truncation as a faster, more efficient retention operation than working against the whole table or rowset.

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.

GitHub documents that repository custom instructions for Copilot Chat can be disabled for your own use in the editor settings, and that doing so does not affect other users . In VS Code, this is controlled through settings related to instruction files, where you can disable the use of repository instruction files for your own environment.

The other options are incorrect:

B is not a documented mechanism for disabling repository-level Copilot instructions.

C would remove the repository instruction file itself and therefore affect everyone using that repository, which violates the requirement.

The requirement is to ensure embeddings are updated every time the underlying content changes without relying on a nightly batch job. The right design is to enable change tracking on the source table so an external process can identify which rows changed and regenerate embeddings only for those rows. Microsoft documents that change detection mechanisms are used to pick up new and updated rows incrementally , which is the right pattern when you need near-continuous refresh instead of full nightly rebuilds.

This is better than:

A. fixed-size chunking , which affects chunk strategy but not change detection.

B. a smaller embedding model , which affects model cost/latency but not update triggering.

C. table triggers , which would push embedding-maintenance logic directly into write operations and is generally not the best design for AI-processing pipelines. The question specifically asks for a solution that replaces the nightly batch requirement, not one that performs heavyweight work inline during every transaction.