Which one's the best----Relational or non-relational DB structure?

[kamalika_kk]

Though I might be asking a very foolish question, but it's important for me to know what's the current trend and the reason for that. My question is----- What is better----- 1. Tables with relations (pk and fks created through script during design time) maintained at the DB. 2. Tables without relations(pk and fks) should be maintained at the DB and accessed with appropriate query as and when needed? Please some one help me with this.....I heard that the 2nd method is the current trend...if it is so then why is it?

[Colin Angus Mackay]

kamalika_kk wrote:

1. Tables with relations (pk and fks created through script during design time) maintained at the DB. 2. Tables without relations(pk and fks) should be maintained at the DB and accessed with appropriate query as and when needed?

All your tables should have a primary key. If you have related tables then they should have foreign keys.

kamalika_kk wrote:

I heard that the 2nd method is the current trend...if it is so then why is it?

That is news to me.

---

Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * UK Security Evangelists On Tour (2nd November, Edinburgh) * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog

[Paul Conrad]

Colin Angus Mackay wrote:

kamalika_kk wrote: I heard that the 2nd method is the current trend...if it is so then why is it? That is news to me.

Same here. Haven't even considered using tables with out relations. Any data model I've worked with has some kind of relationship between entities.

---

That's no moon, it's a space station. - Obi-wan Kenobi