Join predicate count: When joining multiple tables, should there be one join condition in the WHERE/ON clause for each pair of tables being joined (that is, for every combination of two tables)?

Introduction / Context:
A common confusion in SQL is how many join predicates are necessary when combining multiple tables. Some assume a predicate is required for every possible pair of tables, but that would be excessive and typically incorrect. This question clarifies the proper rule of thumb.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• We join k tables (k >= 2).
• We aim to avoid Cartesian products while ensuring correct relationships.
• We use ANSI JOIN syntax or WHERE-based joining with clear ON conditions.

Concept / Approach:
For k tables, you generally need at least k - 1 join predicates to connect them into a single connected join graph (analogous to connecting nodes in a graph). You do not need a predicate for every pair of tables; the number of pairs is k*(k-1)/2, which is far larger than necessary. Additional predicates may be used for filters or many-to-many intersection conditions, but one-per-pair is not a rule. Therefore the statement is incorrect.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Draw an entity-relationship diagram. Each join predicate typically corresponds to a relationship between two entities. Counting the relationships needed to connect all involved tables will usually yield k - 1, not the full set of pairs.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Correct: Would mistakenly require C(k,2) predicates and overconstrain or duplicate logic.
• Star, self-join, or index type does not change the fundamental combinatorics.

Common Pitfalls:
Forgetting a needed predicate (causing duplication) or adding unnecessary cross-pair predicates that break correct cardinalities or filter out valid rows.

Final Answer:
Incorrect