Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Appian Exam ACD200 Topic 5 Question 47 Discussion

Actual exam question for Appian's ACD200 exam
Question #: 47
Topic #: 5
[All ACD200 Questions]

There is a need to relate two entities in the data structure: Employee and Skill.

Employees can have multiple skills, and a single skill can relate to multiple employees.

What kind of relationship would these entities have, and what is the minimum number of tables required to implement the design, according to Appian best practices? (Choose the best answer.)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Contribute your Thoughts:

Miss
10 days ago
Option B all the way! It's the most efficient way to handle this scenario. Plus, who needs more than 2 tables anyway? One-stop shopping, baby!
upvoted 0 times
...
Meghann
12 days ago
Wow, this is a classic database design question. I'm confident option B is the right answer. Gotta love those many-to-many relationships!
upvoted 0 times
...
Audria
28 days ago
Haha, I bet the exam writer is trying to trick us with these options. But I'm going with B, it's the simplest and most straightforward solution.
upvoted 0 times
Carmen
16 days ago
User1: I think B is the answer too, it makes sense for multiple skills and employees to be connected.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Gerardo
2 months ago
I think option D is the best answer. A many-to-many relationship requires 3 tables to properly implement it.
upvoted 0 times
Zana
25 days ago
Yes, you are correct. Option D is the best answer for a many-to-many relationship.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zana
1 months ago
I agree, option D is correct. Many-to-many relationships typically require 3 tables.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dominga
2 months ago
The relationship between Employee and Skill is many-to-many, so option B is the correct answer. We need 2 tables to implement this design according to Appian best practices.
upvoted 0 times
...
Azzie
2 months ago
But wouldn't we need 3 tables for many-to-many relationship?
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebeca
2 months ago
I agree with Rikki, many-to-many makes sense for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rikki
2 months ago
I think the relationship would be many-to-many.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel