0 votes 0 votes ER- no of tables? Databases databases + – balchandar reddy san asked Jan 10, 2019 balchandar reddy san 644 views answer comment Share Follow See all 12 Comments See all 12 12 Comments reply Abhisek Tiwari 4 commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share 4? E1,E2,E3,R2 0 votes 0 votes balchandar reddy san commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share isn't R1 is m:n relationship as well which needs an another table? @Abhisek Tiwari 4 0 votes 0 votes Abhisek Tiwari 4 commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share then also i think we can do it in 4 if no case for normalization is mentioned. is there cardinality info? 0 votes 0 votes balchandar reddy san commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share no..but i think the given anwer is 3 0 votes 0 votes adarsh_1997 commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share i think 3 will be the answer 0 votes 0 votes adarsh_1997 commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share @balchandar reddy san @Abhisek Tiwari 4 2 votes 2 votes Ashwani commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share If R1 is 1:1 with total participation on either side, then number of relations should be only 2. E1E2R1(P,Q,R,S) and E3R2(T,U,R) 0 votes 0 votes balchandar reddy san commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share but i don't think it's total participation on both sides.. 0 votes 0 votes Ashwani commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share Either doesn't mean both. 0 votes 0 votes adarsh_1997 commented Jan 10, 2019 reply Follow Share according to me it is 1:1 relationship with partial on either end(total+partial) 0 votes 0 votes Abhisek Tiwari 4 commented Jan 11, 2019 reply Follow Share thanks @adarsh_1997 for pic. i was not sure about these rep and treated R2 as many to many. i think u must be sure about correctness of this snap? 0 votes 0 votes Magma commented Jan 11, 2019 reply Follow Share adarsh_1997 I think it can be minimized ---- > 2 table right ?? 1 votes 1 votes Please log in or register to add a comment.