Parent side in a 1:N relationship:\n“In one-to-many (1:N) relationships, which entity becomes the parent is arbitrary.”\nChoose the most accurate evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Understanding which side is “parent” in a 1:N relationship is foundational to data modeling and foreign key placement. The parent/child direction determines how keys and constraints are implemented and how data is inserted and deleted safely.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A 1:N relationship means one parent row can relate to many child rows; each child relates to exactly one parent.
• Foreign keys are placed on the child table, referencing the parent’s primary (or candidate) key.
• Standard relational constraints and common DBMS behavior are assumed.

Concept / Approach:
Parent designation is not arbitrary: it is the “one” side—the entity that owns the key and whose primary key is referenced. The child is the “many” side, holding the foreign key. This direction flows from the business semantics: for example, one Customer has many Orders, therefore Customer is parent and Order is child. Choosing the child to be parent would invert foreign key placement and contradict the “one-to-many” semantics. Performance and indexing are design considerations but do not redefine parenthood.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Inspect sample schemas (Customer–Order, Department–Employee). In each, the foreign key sits on the “many” side, confirming non-arbitrary direction.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Calling it “correct” ignores the semantic definition of 1:N.
• Nullable foreign keys, index selectivity, or the use of surrogate keys do not alter the parent/child roles.

Common Pitfalls:
Designing with bidirectional dependencies; duplicating keys on both sides; misplacing the foreign key on the “one” side.

Final Answer:
Incorrect