Ternary Relationships

[@abdulkarimobeid5159]

"That is the worst steering wheel I have ever seen, pretend that didn't happen" - hahaha

[@flipsmash]

I know, and I am duly ashamed.

[@ChituOkoli]

Unfortunately, the only reason I wanted to watch this video was in trying to figure out participation and cardinality in ternary relationships (that is, which ends are minimum 0 or minimum 1, that is, mandatory or optional), and he basically skipped over that because "it is a bear". :-(

[@aliyagzcaniguroglu5851]

Did you learn it ?

[@swarupmahakud6582]

It was completely awesome to see this.You have got such a great sense of humour!Hurray!

[@sandramintah2151]

Thanks a lot. Gave me a clear understanding to adequately prepare for my exams.

[@maidenrockzzz]

Thank you for the clear, informative, and helpful videos.

[@LuisJavierStudio]

why are we always focusing on a given instance of two entities to find out if they are many of the third, if is many in all of them, cant we say multiple instances of these two entities goes into many of the third? sorry I'm having a hard time understanding the way to approach this diagram.

[@oussamasethoum2755]

That was amazing explanation, Thank you.

[@_mdan9304]

hey thanks, that was very useful!

[@groovyandreababy]

why is the cardinality to supplier many? I thought if you're looking at 1 car and 1 part, then that 1 part for that car can only come from 1 supplier no? Like you can't have half the steering wheel coming from supplier A and the other half from supplier B. Could you please clarify this for me? will really appreciate :)

[@flipsmash]

Good question. You are absolutely correct that for a specific individual steering wheel, that part can only come from a single, specific supplier. HOWEVER, it is possible that Company X sources the steering wheel for Vehicle Y from more than 1 supplier, such that some specific vehicle IDs get their steering wheel from Acme and others get them from WheelCo, etc. Make Sense?

[@UltromanTheTacoman]

"Steer Co." instant classic XD

[@flipsmash]

All the best steering wheels are made by SteerCo!

[@medAmineRg]

that was very helful sir tankyou so much

[@jimenezgomez75]

If an order can have many clients and those clients place the order through many salesperson. Is that a ternary relationship?

[@flipsmash]

It is a candidate, yes. You could model as three many-to-many binary relationships or as a ternary relationship

[@hkccp]

can it be replaced with three binary relationships ? would it be losing some information or relationships ?

[@flipsmash]

+Wai Lok Poon Replacing a ternary relationship with 3 binary relationships does indeed lose information. For example, you can say a given supplier supplies a given part, and that given part is used in a given car, and that given supplier supplies a car, but you can't say for sure that a given supplier supplies a given part to a given car.

[@manasmohapatra7847]

+Brian Finnegan Thank you so much for answering this question. I had this exact doubt and you clarified it

[@dnangel4277]

Thanks Brian! This clears things up for me as well in terms of potentially replacing a ternary relationship with 3 binary relationships! :)

[@ZivotoTeKocka]

Thanks a lot, this really helped me :)

[@allegresse6497]

Excellent. thank you

[@boahgeil465]

what if only one entity type A participates with many in a ternary relationship while the other two only participate with 1? Then could you model the relationship in the table of A?

[@flipsmash]

+diggi No, you can't. You will always need a relationship table for ternary relationships, no matter the cardinality.

[@boahgeil465]

Brian Finnegan Thanks for the fast answer :)

[@GulaschGeneral]

helped a lot! thanks

[@gabrielsousa3926]

Obrigado Belho

[@patrycjadziurdziak3180]

Nice video :)

[@manvithyadavdega3921]

Thanks. Was useful :)

[@pathumsrinath401]

Super explanation 🤍

[@jimloya2490]

very nice

[@888ssj]

thanks :)

[@vobu5598]

Nice tutorial, but dude you should get to know a little bit more about car manufacturer, Ford tztztztz....