3 3 votes In the solution they have merged E1 R4 E4 , E2 R3 E3 R5 , R6 E5. MY DOUBT IS , why cant we only merge R4 E4 instead of E1 R4 E4. since there is total participation on the E4 side of the relation and it would also decrease the number of attributes . Databases databases er-diagram er-to-relational rdbms made-easy-test-series + – shaurya vardhan 2.3k views answer comment Share Follow Print See all 9 Comments 9 9 Comments reply Show 6 previous comments Ashwin Kulkarni commented Dec 4, 2017 reply Follow flag the total participation should be on both sides then we can merge it to one. otherwise some tuples will remain null. 0 0 replyShare Anu007 commented Dec 4, 2017 reply Follow flag with one to one from E1 to E2 and total participation from E2 side merge E2 RE1 with key at E1 side try this with small example 1 1 replyShare Mahmooda Khatoon commented Jan 30, 2018 reply Follow flag If '' 1;1 with total participation can be merged in one table only '', Then what about the m;n relation with one side total participation...plz explain 0 0 replyShare Please log in or register to add a comment.
0 0 votes 5 tables neelesh bhakt answered Jan 31, 2018 neelesh bhakt comment Share Follow See 1 comment 1 1 comment reply Chandrabhan Vishwa 1 commented Nov 4, 2018 reply Follow flag in this case how many table 0 0 replyShare Please log in or register to add a comment.
0 0 votes Tables are E1R4E4 as a 1-1 relation and total participation is present, R1 as many-to-many and partial relation with both entities, Same with R2, R6E5 as E5 is a weak entity, and at last E2R3E3R5 together. So, a total of 5 tables are there. Sarthak_Joshi answered Oct 28, 2025 Sarthak_Joshi comment Share Follow 0 reply Please log in or register to add a comment.
