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
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Esri EADP19-001 Exam - Topic 5 Question 30 Discussion

A local government geodatabase use case requires that airport noise regulation areas be deleted if a corresponding airport point Is deleted.Assuming that one airport can contribute to only one noise regulation area, what is the appropriate way to model the requirement of this use case?
B) a simple relationship class with airports as the origin and noise regulation areas as the destination
A) a simple relationship class with noise regulation areas as the origin and airports as the destination
C) a composite relationship class with airports as the origin and noise regulation areas as the destination
D) a composite relationship class with noise regulation areas as the origin and airports as the destination

Esri EADP19-001 Exam - Topic 5 Question 30 Discussion

Actual exam question for Esri's EADP19-001 exam
Question #: 30
Topic #: 5
[All EADP19-001 Questions]

A local government geodatabase use case requires that airport noise regulation areas be deleted if a corresponding airport point Is deleted.

Assuming that one airport can contribute to only one noise regulation area, what is the appropriate way to model the requirement of this use case?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Lorean at Aug 04, 2023, 01:27 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium EADP19-001 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lettie
7 months ago
D seems off to me; noise areas should depend on airports, not the other way around.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eva
7 months ago
I’m leaning towards C, but not sure if it’s necessary.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tarra
7 months ago
Wait, can one airport really only have one noise area?
upvoted 0 times
...
Tonja
7 months ago
Definitely agree with B!
upvoted 0 times
...
Vicki
7 months ago
I think option B makes the most sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Talia
8 months ago
I feel like a composite relationship class is necessary here because it allows for cascading deletes, but I’m not entirely confident if it should be airports or noise regulation areas as the origin.
upvoted 0 times
...
Winfred
8 months ago
If I remember correctly, the relationship should have airports as the origin since they dictate the existence of the noise regulation areas. So, option B might be the right choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bo
8 months ago
I'm a bit unsure about the difference between simple and composite relationship classes. I remember practicing a question similar to this, but I can't recall the specifics.
upvoted 0 times
...
Junita
8 months ago
I think we need to ensure that when an airport is deleted, the corresponding noise regulation area is also removed. That makes me lean towards a composite relationship class.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mitsue
8 months ago
I'm pretty sure SyncMirror and Metro Cluster are the two technologies that allow for synchronous replication between remote sites.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nan
8 months ago
Ah, I remember learning about this in my WebLogic training. I believe the correct answer is FastSwap. It's a really useful feature for speeding up the development process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ezekiel
8 months ago
I think replacing log-input with just "log" could do the trick, but I'm not entirely confident that's the right change to make here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carin
1 year ago
Option D is just silly. Why would you have the noise regulation areas as the origin and the airports as the destination? That's like putting the cart before the horse!
upvoted 0 times
...
Julio
1 year ago
Haha, I bet the exam writers are trying to trick us with these options! But Option C is definitely the correct answer. Can't have those pesky noise regulation areas hanging around without their corresponding airports.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ashanti
1 year ago
I'm leaning towards Option B. A simple relationship class with airports as the origin and noise regulation areas as the destination would also work, right? Doesn't seem as complicated as a composite relationship.
upvoted 0 times
Rozella
11 months ago
Definitely, Option B is the most logical choice. It's clear and easy to understand.
upvoted 0 times
...
Franchesca
11 months ago
I think Option B is the most efficient solution. It makes sense to have airports as the origin.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sang
11 months ago
I agree, Option B is the way to go. It's simpler and easier to manage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nelida
1 year ago
Option B seems like the best choice. It's straightforward and should get the job done.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Bernardo
1 year ago
Option C seems like the way to go. A composite relationship class with airports as the origin and noise regulation areas as the destination would ensure that the noise regulation areas are deleted whenever the corresponding airport is deleted.
upvoted 0 times
Johnetta
12 months ago
That way, deleting an airport would automatically delete the corresponding noise regulation area.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaclyn
12 months ago
It makes sense to have airports as the origin in the relationship class.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marsha
1 year ago
I agree, option C would maintain the relationship between airports and noise regulation areas.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Fatima
1 year ago
But wouldn't it make more sense to have the airports as the origin since they are the main feature and the noise regulation areas are dependent on them?
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonor
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is B) a simple relationship class with airports as the origin and noise regulation areas as the destination.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fatima
1 year ago
I think the answer is A) a simple relationship class with noise regulation areas as the origin and airports as the destination.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel