Posted by Shwetabh on 02/16/06 12:35

Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> Shwetabh (shwetabhgoel@gmail.com) writes:
> > I have a very simple question.
> > In what cases are relational databases necessary?
> > Are they really necessary in cases where only a
> > single type of query is to be performed based on one unique
> > field or can we just put all fields together in a single database
> > and just access them through that unique field?
>
> There are plenty of alternatievs to relational databases. There are object-
> oriented databases, there are probably still some hierarchical databases
> around, and there are systems that uses flat files.
>
> But the relational databases dominate the market, probably because they
> have proven to be very good at handling large amounts of data.
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

Actually I am not asking about the alternatives. I just want to know
that are
relational databases really necessary for me if I require just a single
record
every time with no changes in structure, i.e I always need a record
based on
a unique value. Do i still need to create relations in the database or
am I better off
butting all fields in a single table and getting data from there.

[Back to original message]