It should be many to one but one can say one to many relationship, actually, it is the direction of the relationship.
but the answer is one to many.
This browser is no longer supported.
Upgrade to Microsoft Edge to take advantage of the latest features, security updates, and technical support.
I did the PL-300 practice exam in Microsoft Learn, and one of the questions was:
You have designed a star schema to simplify your data. You need to understand the relationship between the tables in the star schema. What is the relationship between the fact tables and dimension tables?
Well, "between" doesn’t really address the positioning between the tables. I know that the fact table is the one with many values and dimension table is the one with unique values. But which option to choose: one-to-many or many-to-one? Fact is many, and dimension is one. I thought that the right answer is many-to-one, because the question is formulated as “between the fact tables and dimension tables”. In other words, facts tables, i.e., many-side is mentioned first. However, the right answer seems to be one-to-many: “There is one-to-many relationship between a fact table and dimension tables.” Have I understood something wrong or is the question ambiguous?
It should be many to one but one can say one to many relationship, actually, it is the direction of the relationship.
but the answer is one to many.