KQL solution fails the goal because sort by defaults to descending order
Short answer
B The KQL sort operator defaults to descending order and the solution's 'sort by No_Bikes' omits asc, so the ascending requirement is not met.
Question
Key Takeaways
The KQL sort operator defaults to descending; meeting an ascending-order requirement requires an explicit asc modifier, and the proposed solution's 'sort by No_Bikes' omits it.
The proposed KQL code filters bike_location for Sands End with No_Bikes >= 15 and sorts by No_Bikes without the asc modifier; the KQL sort operator returns rows in descending order by default, so the required ascending order is not met.
Common mistake: Assuming KQL sort behaves like T-SQL's ascending ORDER BY; KQL defaults to descending, so the solution returns the highest No_Bikes values first.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
The requirement states results must be ordered by No_Bikes in ascending order. The KQL sort operator returns rows in descending order by default, and ascending order requires explicitly specifying asc. The proposed code segment - filter Neighbourhood == "Sands End" and No_Bikes >= 15, then 'sort by No_Bikes' with no asc - returns rows from highest to lowest No_Bikes and does not meet the goal. Hence the answer is No.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A (Yes) would only hold if the solution explicitly sorted ascending, which the documented default behavior rules out. The filter logic itself (Sands End, No_Bikes >= 15) is satisfied, and the doubled project lines do not change the result, so ordering is the deciding failure.
Community Comment Notes
The community is unanimous (B 100). SamuComqi (9 likes) explains the sort operator's default descending behavior, links the sort operator documentation, and notes the double project does not affect the result. MuffiSan and benni_ale repeat the default-desc rule, and GHill1982 additionally notes where should be used instead of filter.
Official Reference
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/kusto/query/sort-operator?view=microsoft-fabric
This link opens the official vendor documentation in a new tab.
Community Votes
100% of anonymous learners picked answer B. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Discussion 5 contributions
Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors.
From public community threads 5
-
SamuComqi 👍 9 Answered BThe answer is B. No because the "sort by" is sorting values in descending order (default behavior --> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/kusto/query/sort-operator?view=microsoft-fabric). One should add "asc" to sort values as required. The double "project" at the end does not affect the final result
-
MuffiSan 👍 4 Answered Bsort is desc by default in kql
-
GHill1982 👍 3 Answered BIn KQL the where keyword should be used instead of filter.
-
QAZdbarhate12345678 👍 1The provided code segment meets the goal. Breakdown: Filter Condition: The code uses filter Neighbourhood == "Sands End" and No_Bikes >= 15 to meet the requirement of filtering the data for the "Sands End" neighborhood and where No_Bikes is at least 15. Sorting: The sort by No_Bikes clause ensures that the results are ordered by No_Bikes in ascending order, which aligns with the requirement. Projection: The fields BikepointID, Street, Neighbourhood, No_Bikes, No_Empty_Docks, and Timestamp are projected, which ensures the required fields are returned for the query. Hence, the solution is correct and achieves the stated goal. The correct answer is A. Yes.
-
benni_ale 👍 1 Answered Bsort by in kql is by default in descending order
Reader comments & corrections
No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.