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.
Solved! Go to Solution.
This is the latest email update I received about that bug:
2023-07-26
It says the issue is fixed in 3.2.
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_
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)
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.
This is the latest email update I received about that bug:
2023-07-26
It says the issue is fixed in 3.2.
Thanks for the update! I appreciate it.
I would suggest updating the answer to this post with your reply.