|
|
Posted by Tony Rogerson on 02/19/06 11:14
It depends what you are doing.
If its a single row ever then just store the information in a xml document
on the file system.
If you are storing multiple rows then I'd consider using a database system
because you then dont have to roll your own data access code, having said
that, .NET has a number of facilities to help you there.
Tony.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Shwetabh" <shwetabhgoel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140086144.048226.309750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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]
|