A relational diagram can be seen in the exhibit; a Gamer (parent entity) is shown to have many Owned Games (child entity). Each owned game is essentially a property of the gamer. Looking at this diagr

Question

Exhibit

Options

• AActs as an object
• BActs as an object array
• CActs as a new schema
• DActs as an array of values

• A
  14% (5)
• B
  77% (27)
• C
  6% (2)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

In a one-to-many relationship, the Gamer parent can be associated with multiple Owned Games rows, each of which is a structured record with its own attributes (e.g., game title, purchase date). From a data architect's perspective - especially when thinking in terms of object-relational or document models - that collection of structured child records maps directly to an object array: an array where each element is an object, not a primitive.

Why the distractors fail:

• A (object): A single object implies one-to-one. Here the relationship is one-to-many, so a single object is insufficient.
• C (new schema): A child table lives in the same schema; it doesn't create a new one. A new schema would be an entirely separate namespace.
• D (array of values): An array of values holds scalar/primitive data (e.g., [1, 2, 3]). Owned Games has its own columns/attributes, making each entry an object, not a plain value.

Memory tip: Picture the JSON equivalent - a Gamer would have "ownedGames": [{...}, {...}, {...}]. That bracket-of-braces structure is exactly an object array. If each entry has properties, it's an object; if there are many of them, it's an array - hence object array.

No community discussion yet for this question.