RelashionShips in Appian do not reflect FOREIGN KEY definitions in a database

Hi!!!

  1. When we create a database and define there the relationships between tables using FOREIGN KEY... REFERENCES... all the systems can automatically retrieve those relationships and represent them, but Appian does not do so. Why Appian do not reflect the relations in the Record Types?
  2. If we define ONE relationship 1:N in a database, there are indeed two implicit relations: a relation from 1--->N and another form N-->1. Why Appian adds a direction for the relations? Is there a reason for that or any type of advantage to define specifically a direction for a relation?

Thanks.

  Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible

Parents
  • 0
    Certified Lead Developer

    My perspective on this is, that the database is only a integrated system like any other. Appian at its core does not need a relational database and the platform tries to limit dependencies on these integrated systems.

    I am building enterprise Appian applications for > 12 years now and try to keep the relational DB as dumb as possible. And I never had the urge to do more than a simple view or a stored procedure for ETL jobs.

    Low-Code with Appian gives you the opportunity to make the whole development a lot easier. Give it a try.

    This is just my humble opinion and there are other perspectives on this.

Reply
  • 0
    Certified Lead Developer

    My perspective on this is, that the database is only a integrated system like any other. Appian at its core does not need a relational database and the platform tries to limit dependencies on these integrated systems.

    I am building enterprise Appian applications for > 12 years now and try to keep the relational DB as dumb as possible. And I never had the urge to do more than a simple view or a stored procedure for ETL jobs.

    Low-Code with Appian gives you the opportunity to make the whole development a lot easier. Give it a try.

    This is just my humble opinion and there are other perspectives on this.

Children
No Data