New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Appian ACD200 Exam - 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

by Josefa at Jan 15, 2025, 10:02 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium ACD200 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Dyan
3 months ago
Hmm, I thought one-to-many was a possibility too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawnna
3 months ago
Totally agree, many-to-many is the way to go!
upvoted 0 times
...
Edward
3 months ago
Wait, are we sure it’s not just 2 tables?
upvoted 0 times
...
Aja
4 months ago
I think it requires 3 tables for proper normalization.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawna
4 months ago
It's definitely a many-to-many relationship!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenita
4 months ago
I feel like it’s definitely many-to-many, but I’m confused about the number of tables. I thought it was always 3 for that kind of relationship.
upvoted 0 times
...
Britt
4 months ago
I practiced a similar question, and I believe the answer is many-to-many with 2 tables, but I might be mixing it up with one-to-many scenarios.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alaine
4 months ago
I’m not entirely sure, but I remember something about needing a junction table for many-to-many relationships. Does that mean we need 3 tables?
upvoted 0 times
...
Adrianna
5 months ago
I think the relationship is many-to-many since an employee can have multiple skills and a skill can belong to multiple employees.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashawnda
5 months ago
The key here is understanding the relationship between Employees and Skills. Since each employee can have multiple skills, and each skill can be associated with multiple employees, the answer must be B, many-to-many with 2 tables.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desirae
5 months ago
I'm leaning towards D, many-to-many with 3 tables. That would allow us to store additional metadata about the relationship between Employees and Skills, like the proficiency level or date acquired. But I'm not 100% sure if that's the Appian best practice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maira
5 months ago
Okay, I think I've got it. Since each employee can have multiple skills, and each skill can be associated with multiple employees, the relationship must be many-to-many. So the answer is B, 2 tables.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ernestine
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure here. I know we need to model the relationship between Employees and Skills, but I'm not sure if it's one-to-many or many-to-many. Let me think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lizbeth
5 months ago
This seems like a classic many-to-many relationship between Employees and Skills. I'm pretty confident the answer is B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Miss
9 months 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
Augustine
8 months ago
Definitely! Who needs more than 2 tables anyway? Option B is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leontine
8 months ago
Agreed! It's the most efficient way to handle the scenario with Employee and Skill entities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mozell
9 months ago
I think option B is the way to go. Many-to-many relationship with 2 tables is efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Meghann
9 months 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
Elden
8 months ago
Definitely, having a clear understanding of the relationship helps in structuring the data effectively.
upvoted 0 times
...
Magdalene
8 months ago
I agree, it's important to properly model the relationship between entities in the database design.
upvoted 0 times
...
Golda
8 months ago
Yeah, it makes sense to have 2 tables for a many-to-many relationship between employees and skills.
upvoted 0 times
...
Virgie
8 months ago
I think option B is correct too. Many-to-many relationships are common in database design.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Audria
10 months 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
Mila
8 months ago
User1: Definitely, keeping it simple with just 2 tables is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Asha
9 months ago
User2: Yeah, I agree. It's the most efficient way to represent the relationship between employees and skills.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carmen
9 months ago
User1: I think B is the answer too, it makes sense for multiple skills and employees to be connected.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Gerardo
10 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
10 months ago
Yes, you are correct. Option D is the best answer for a many-to-many relationship.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zana
10 months ago
I agree, option D is correct. Many-to-many relationships typically require 3 tables.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dominga
10 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
11 months ago
But wouldn't we need 3 tables for many-to-many relationship?
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebeca
11 months ago
I agree with Rikki, many-to-many makes sense for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rikki
11 months ago
I think the relationship would be many-to-many.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel