Classical data models: Which type of database model most closely resembles the hierarchical model in structure and navigation semantics?

Introduction / Context:
Before relational databases dominated, hierarchical and network models were widely used. Both are navigational models in which the application follows predefined paths among records. Understanding the similarities clarifies why migrating legacy systems to relational platforms can be challenging.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Hierarchical model organizes data in strict parent–child trees.
• Network model extends this with record types and set types allowing many-to-many relationships.
• Relational model uses set-based algebra and declarative queries.

Concept / Approach:
The network model (CODASYL) resembles the hierarchical model in that both are navigational and require explicit traversal via pointers/sets. The key difference is that the network model allows a child to have multiple parents (many-to-many), whereas hierarchical enforces a single-parent tree. Distributed databases are an architectural deployment pattern, not a logical data model.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Classic DBMS texts map hierarchical navigation concepts directly to network set membership with additional flexibility, confirming the close resemblance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Relational database: fundamentally different (set-based, declarative SQL).
• Distributed database: distribution topology, not a logical model.
• Hierarchical database: this is the reference model, not a resemblance option.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “distributed” with a logical model or assuming relational schemas imply tree-like structures; relational joins are not navigational pointers.

Final Answer:
Network database