One-to-one join is shown as one-to-many

[Bud]

ArcGIS Pro 3.1.1; file geodatabase

I have a table in a FGDB called TEST_TABLE. I've copy/pasted the table via Catalog into the same FGDB as TEST_TABLE_2.

I've added both tables to the map. In the attribute table of TEST_TABLE, I create a join to TEST_TABLE_2 via the OBJECTID columns.

With TEST_TABLE, I open Contents —> right-click —> Properties —> Joins. The join is shown as one-to-many. But it's actually a one-to-one join -- because the tables being exact copies and the fact that OBJECTIDs don't allow duplicate IDs.

Why is the join shown as one-to-many if it is one-to-one?

Video:

Note:

I used the simple case above to demonstrate the issue. But my real use case is creating a database view on TEST_TABLE and joining from TEST_TABLE to the view.

select objectid, case when type = 'NT' then 1 else 0 end as flag from test_table 

The same issue happens with the joined view: the join is shown as one-to-many but it is actually one-to-one. 

See Virtual Attributes (ad hoc), Promote selected records, or Specify how nulls are sorted for background info. 

[RhettZufelt]

I just that that was one of the 'updates' with Pro 🙂

Even using the Add Join tool:

Then look at the results of that join:

R_

[Bud]

Esri Case #03335613 - One-to-one join is shown as one-to-many

BUG-000158141: The cardinality of a join is incorrect in the Layer properties for 1:1 joins in ArcGIS Pro 3.1

Additional Information: Will doc this better and see if there is something I can do with the MapAuthoring team. All the joins in Pro are have Cardinallity 1 to many, so saying so does not give value to users. Our messages in validate join are correct.

Validate Join message has incorrect information (join to table with definition query)

[Gene_Sipes]

Did this bug get squashed? I am seeing the same issue in arcgis pro 3.1.2 except the cardinality is shown as one to one in the relate properties, but it is clearly a one to many in fucntion. 

[Bud · Accepted solution]

This is the latest email update I received about that bug:

2023-07-26

It says the issue is fixed in 3.2.

[Gene_Sipes]

Thanks for the update! I appreciate it. 

I would suggest updating the answer to this post with your reply.