I have been stumped by Cardinality Ratios and Participation Constraints for a couple of weeks. This video made everything clear within 15 minutes. I cannot thank you enough!
idk, do you consider to get a job in the university as a professor? because this is WAY MORE clearer than what my processor had done, you'd slay as a professor lol. awesome video and thanks SO MUCH for sharing!
This video and previous 2 videos forced me to comment that such a great explanation. Now ER-Diagram is completely understood by me. I had gone though many videos for Relational Models but this one cleared all my concepts
You're the best, Neso Academy !! my exam on the twenty-fifth day of the fifth month of the two-thousand and twenty-second year of our lord will be a breeze thanks to your vast knowledge and your excellent commiunication skills !! :D
about cardinality ration and alternate notation... is the cardinality ratio reversed in the alternate notation? because: "common" notation: EMPLOYEE > N > works for > 1 > DEPARTMENT alternate notation: EMPLOYEE > (1,1) > works for > (1,N) > DEPARTMENT note that the cardinality part (second item between parenthesis) for the alternate notation is inversed when compared to the common notation. is that really correct? if not, which is the correct way to express that "1 employee works for 1 department, but 1 department is worked by N employees"?
Im using your example Cardinality Ratio: Says n employees can work for only ONE department Alternate Notation(min, max): EMPLOYEE(1,1) - A minimum of 1 employee has to participate in the relationship "Works For" and can work for maximum of 1 department. DEPARTMENT(1,N) - A minimum of 1 department can be worked on by a maximum of N employees.
Thanks, I have a doubt, relationship is between 2 entities, so from which entity point of view we have to see, I mean whether it is one to many (or) many to one.
