$17.(5$ points$)$ Find accounts who transactiond 'SillyCoin' and also 'Funny Coin'. $($a$)$ select from account where transactiond in $(\text{'}$Silly Coin', 'FunnyCoin'$)($b$)$ select from account inner join transactiondetail on ccountid and description in $(\text{'}$Silly$-$ Coin', 'FunnyCoin'$)($c$)$ select accountid from transaction where description lyCoin', 'FunnyCoin$0\text{'})($d$)$ select accountid from transaction a inner join transactiondetail inner join transaction bin$-$ ner join transactiondetail where a$.$description$=$'SillyCoin' and b$.$description$=$'Funny Coin' $($e$)$ Other:

$18.(5$ points$)$ In general, on limited memory system, no indexes, and huge tables, what join type would perform best? $($a$)$ merge join. $($b$)$ hash join. $($c$)$ indexed lookup join. $($d$)$ inner loop join. $($e$)$ Other:

$19.(5$ points$)$ For "account inner join transaction", and no indexes, most modern databases will perform: $($a$)$ merge join. $($b$)$ hash join. $($c$)$ indexed lookup join. $($d$)$ inner loop join. $($e$)$ Other:

$20.(5$ points$)$ Partitions: $($a$)$ Are similar to views. $($b$)$ Are similar to temporary tables. $($c$)$ Allow for physical clustering of logically similar data.. $($d$)$ All of the above. $($e$)$ Other: