This topic contains a solution. Click here to go to the answer

Author Question: It is possible to join two tables without joining a foreign key column in one table with a primary ... (Read 102 times)

Coya19@aol.com

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 601
It is possible to join two tables without joining a foreign key column in one table with a primary key column in another table.
 
  Indicate whether the statement is true or false

Question 2

Prospective projects should be examined from a systems perspective in order to consider the impact of the proposed change on the entire organization.
 
  Indicate whether the statement is true or false



Related Topics

Need homework help now?

Ask unlimited questions for free

Ask a Question
Marked as best answer by a Subject Expert

bpool94

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
Answer to Question 1

TRUE

Answer to Question 2

TRUE




Coya19@aol.com

  • Member
  • Posts: 601
Reply 2 on: Jul 7, 2018
YES! Correct, THANKS for helping me on my review


bbburns21

  • Member
  • Posts: 336
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
Gracias!

 

Did you know?

More than one-third of adult Americans are obese. Diseases that kill the largest number of people annually, such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke, and hypertension, can be attributed to diet.

Did you know?

Alcohol acts as a diuretic. Eight ounces of water is needed to metabolize just 1 ounce of alcohol.

Did you know?

Inotropic therapy does not have a role in the treatment of most heart failure patients. These drugs can make patients feel and function better but usually do not lengthen the predicted length of their lives.

Did you know?

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, lung disease is the third leading killer in the United States, responsible for one in seven deaths. It is the leading cause of death among infants under the age of one year.

Did you know?

Although the Roman numeral for the number 4 has always been taught to have been "IV," according to historians, the ancient Romans probably used "IIII" most of the time. This is partially backed up by the fact that early grandfather clocks displayed IIII for the number 4 instead of IV. Early clockmakers apparently thought that the IIII balanced out the VIII (used for the number 8) on the clock face and that it just looked better.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library