Microsoft DP-800 Practice Test 46
Question 450
BrightPath Studios is responsible for an Azure SQL or Microsoft SQL workload. A large analytic table performs poorly after many tiny inserts. Operational evidence: Columnstore contains many small delta rowgroups. What operational condition would provide the earliest useful regression warning?
- Monitor long-running open transactions
- Monitor open and deleted rowgroup ratios
- Monitor Query Store regressed queries
- Monitor index usage and storage overhead
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:
Columnstore contains many small delta rowgroups. Monitor open and deleted rowgroup ratios.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Monitor long-running open transactions” concerns Lock waits remain while session is inactive; the reported problem instead is Columnstore contains many small delta rowgroups. Monitor open and deleted rowgroup ratios.
C:
“Monitor Query Store regressed queries” concerns Query Store captures a new high-cost plan; the reported problem instead is Columnstore contains many small delta rowgroups. Monitor open and deleted rowgroup ratios.
D:
“Monitor index usage and storage overhead” concerns A single recommendation ignores write/storage cost; the reported problem instead is Columnstore contains many small delta rowgroups. Monitor open and deleted rowgroup ratios.
Question 451
At Lakeview Services, a reporting query spills large sorts to tempdb. The observed constraint is: Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. What initial check best narrows the technical cause without altering business data?
- Inspect isolation and row-version conflict errors
- Inspect sort/hash spills and underestimated row counts
- Inspect Query Store plans and parameter distributions
- Inspect isolation level and observed read anomalies
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:
Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Inspect sort/hash spills and underestimated row counts.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Inspect isolation and row-version conflict errors” concerns App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Inspect sort/hash spills and underestimated row counts.
C:
“Inspect Query Store plans and parameter distributions” concerns The cached query plan favors one selectivity pattern; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Inspect sort/hash spills and underestimated row counts.
D:
“Inspect isolation level and observed read anomalies” concerns Concurrent updates produce inconsistent intermediate totals; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Inspect sort/hash spills and underestimated row counts.
Question 452
A database engineer at Crownridge Travel is investigating this case: A reporting query spills large sorts to tempdb. The relevant finding is: Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Which proposed change is the most suitable response to the observed constraint?
- Fix application transaction lifetime and safely handle the blocker
- Make transactions access resources consistently and retry chosen victims
- Create or revise composite index key order for dominant filters
- Fix cardinality/index design or query shape before increasing resources
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:
Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Fix cardinality/index design or query shape before increasing resources.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Fix application transaction lifetime and safely handle the blocker” concerns Lock waits remain while session is inactive; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Fix cardinality/index design or query shape before increasing resources.
B:
“Make transactions access resources consistently and retry chosen victims” concerns Deadlock graphs repeatedly identify the same pair of statements; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Fix cardinality/index design or query shape before increasing resources.
C:
“Create or revise composite index key order for dominant filters” concerns Existing index begins with a rarely filtered column; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Fix cardinality/index design or query shape before increasing resources.
Question 453
Oakridge Advisors is responsible for an Azure SQL or Microsoft SQL workload. A reporting query spills large sorts to tempdb. Operational evidence: Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. What isolated pilot would provide the strongest evidence before rollout?
- Benchmark lookups before/after on representative dataset
- Replay concurrent update/read workload against a sandbox copy
- Replay affected query with prior and candidate plan on snapshot
- Replay representative sort with captured plans
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:
Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Replay representative sort with captured plans.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Benchmark lookups before/after on representative dataset” concerns Existing index begins with a rarely filtered column; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Replay representative sort with captured plans.
B:
“Replay concurrent update/read workload against a sandbox copy” concerns Readers wait for exclusive locks during updates; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Replay representative sort with captured plans.
C:
“Replay affected query with prior and candidate plan on snapshot” concerns Query Store captures a new high-cost plan; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Replay representative sort with captured plans.
Question 454
At Horizon Communications, a reporting query spills large sorts to tempdb. The observed constraint is: Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Which acceptance result most directly demonstrates the requirement has been satisfied?
- Query performance returns without incorrect forced assumptions
- Spill events decrease and query remains correct
- Deadlocks fall and transaction invariants remain intact
- Both workloads meet latency goals with correct row results
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:
Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Spill events decrease and query remains correct.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Query performance returns without incorrect forced assumptions” concerns Query Store captures a new high-cost plan; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Spill events decrease and query remains correct.
C:
“Deadlocks fall and transaction invariants remain intact” concerns Deadlock graphs repeatedly identify the same pair of statements; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Spill events decrease and query remains correct.
D:
“Both workloads meet latency goals with correct row results” concerns The cached query plan favors one selectivity pattern; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Spill events decrease and query remains correct.
Question 455
A database engineer at Brookfield Labs is investigating this case: A reporting query spills large sorts to tempdb. The relevant finding is: Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. What operational condition would provide the earliest useful regression warning?
- Monitor plan forcing and parameter regression
- Monitor row versioning and tempdb or persistent version-store pressure
- Monitor tempdb waits and memory grants
- Monitor Query Store regressed queries
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:
Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Monitor tempdb waits and memory grants.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Monitor plan forcing and parameter regression” concerns The cached query plan favors one selectivity pattern; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Monitor tempdb waits and memory grants.
B:
“Monitor row versioning and tempdb or persistent version-store pressure” concerns Readers wait for exclusive locks during updates; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Monitor tempdb waits and memory grants.
D:
“Monitor Query Store regressed queries” concerns Query Store captures a new high-cost plan; the reported problem instead is Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant. Monitor tempdb waits and memory grants.
Question 456
Cascade Manufacturing is responsible for an Azure SQL or Microsoft SQL workload. A SQL workload under snapshot isolation sees update conflicts. Operational evidence: App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. What initial check best narrows the technical cause without altering business data?
- Inspect isolation level and observed read anomalies
- Inspect sort/hash spills and underestimated row counts
- Inspect wait stats, isolation settings and transaction duration
- Inspect isolation and row-version conflict errors
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:
App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Inspect isolation and row-version conflict errors.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Inspect isolation level and observed read anomalies” concerns Concurrent updates produce inconsistent intermediate totals; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Inspect isolation and row-version conflict errors.
B:
“Inspect sort/hash spills and underestimated row counts” concerns Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Inspect isolation and row-version conflict errors.
C:
“Inspect wait stats, isolation settings and transaction duration” concerns Readers wait for exclusive locks during updates; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Inspect isolation and row-version conflict errors.
Question 457
At Clearwater Utilities, a SQL workload under snapshot isolation sees update conflicts. The observed constraint is: App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Which proposed change is the most suitable response to the observed constraint?
- Improve batching and supported rowgroup maintenance strategy
- Make transactions access resources consistently and retry chosen victims
- Fix cardinality/index design or query shape before increasing resources
- Apply bounded retry with idempotency after handling conflicts
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:
App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Apply bounded retry with idempotency after handling conflicts.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Improve batching and supported rowgroup maintenance strategy” concerns Columnstore contains many small delta rowgroups; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Apply bounded retry with idempotency after handling conflicts.
B:
“Make transactions access resources consistently and retry chosen victims” concerns Deadlock graphs repeatedly identify the same pair of statements; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Apply bounded retry with idempotency after handling conflicts.
C:
“Fix cardinality/index design or query shape before increasing resources” concerns Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Apply bounded retry with idempotency after handling conflicts.
Question 458
A database engineer at Cedarbridge Health is investigating this case: A SQL workload under snapshot isolation sees update conflicts. The relevant finding is: App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. What isolated pilot would provide the strongest evidence before rollout?
- Run simultaneous test writer and reader transactions
- Run two conflicting sandbox updates with retry policy
- Bulk-load comparable test batches and run aggregates
- Replay concurrent update/read workload against a sandbox copy
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:
App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Run two conflicting sandbox updates with retry policy.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Run simultaneous test writer and reader transactions” concerns Concurrent updates produce inconsistent intermediate totals; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Run two conflicting sandbox updates with retry policy.
C:
“Bulk-load comparable test batches and run aggregates” concerns Columnstore contains many small delta rowgroups; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Run two conflicting sandbox updates with retry policy.
D:
“Replay concurrent update/read workload against a sandbox copy” concerns Readers wait for exclusive locks during updates; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Run two conflicting sandbox updates with retry policy.
Question 459
Ashwood Solutions is responsible for an Azure SQL or Microsoft SQL workload. A SQL workload under snapshot isolation sees update conflicts. Operational evidence: App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Which acceptance result most directly demonstrates the requirement has been satisfied?
- Compressed rowgroups and scan efficiency improve
- Deadlocks fall and transaction invariants remain intact
- Invariant preserved and expected one transaction eventually succeeds
- Spill events decrease and query remains correct
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:
App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Invariant preserved and expected one transaction eventually succeeds.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Compressed rowgroups and scan efficiency improve” concerns Columnstore contains many small delta rowgroups; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Invariant preserved and expected one transaction eventually succeeds.
B:
“Deadlocks fall and transaction invariants remain intact” concerns Deadlock graphs repeatedly identify the same pair of statements; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Invariant preserved and expected one transaction eventually succeeds.
D:
“Spill events decrease and query remains correct” concerns Actual plan warns of spill and high memory grant; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Invariant preserved and expected one transaction eventually succeeds.
Question 460
At Seabrook University, a SQL workload under snapshot isolation sees update conflicts. The observed constraint is: App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. What operational condition would provide the earliest useful regression warning?
- Monitor index usage and storage overhead
- Monitor retry storms and repeat conflicts
- Monitor plan forcing and parameter regression
- Monitor Query Store regressed queries
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:
App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Monitor retry storms and repeat conflicts.
Incorrect Answers
A:
“Monitor index usage and storage overhead” concerns A single recommendation ignores write/storage cost; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Monitor retry storms and repeat conflicts.
C:
“Monitor plan forcing and parameter regression” concerns The cached query plan favors one selectivity pattern; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Monitor retry storms and repeat conflicts.
D:
“Monitor Query Store regressed queries” concerns Query Store captures a new high-cost plan; the reported problem instead is App treats concurrency conflict as permanent failure. Monitor retry storms and repeat conflicts.