Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Constraints

The Case for Foreign Key Constraints

Greg Low violates Betteridge’s Law of Headlines:

Foreign keys are used to ensure referential integrity in relational databases. We don’t want to have orders for customers that don’t exist, or have lines on the orders that refer to products that don’t exist. That seems straightforward enough – and a good idea – so why is there an endless discussion in the development community about whether databases should include declared foreign key constraints or not?

I tend to be a foreign key extremist, in that I want key constraints whenever possible. There are certain specific cases in which foreign key constraints can’t work, but I’d argue they’re much rarer than people think.

Leave a Comment

Wide Tables and Adding Columns

Richard O’Riordan runs into an oddity:

We have a wide table in MS SQL Server (2019), say 150 columns. We want to add a new bit column at the end of this table with a default value of 0, at first look at this I would have thought, that’s not a big deal, this is a meta-data only change but it wasn’t, the entire table got re-written, so here are some scenarios I tested.

This is quite odd because my recollection is that, with a default constraint, SQL Server shouldn’t need to write anything to the table, and that’s how it’s looked in my testing. Remus Rusanu also had a nice post getting into the details of how this changed for SQL Server 2012. Maybe it’s an oddity from having so many columns on the table or records of a certain width or something?

Leave a Comment

Adding Foreign Keys and Deadlocks

Michael J. Swart explains a challenge in adding a foreign key to an existing table:

Schema modification locks (SCH-M) are taken by DDL (Data Definition Language) statements like CREATE/ALTER/DROP.
Schema stability locks (SCH-S) are taken by DML (Data Manipulation Language) statements like INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE.

Those two types of locks are incompatible. Meaning, I can’t get a SCH-S lock on some table if you’ve already got a SCH-M lock on it (and vice versa).
Paul Randal describes the SCH-M lock as a super-table-X lock. It makes sense to me, if I’m half way through querying a table, I don’t want its definition to change.

Such a pessimistic lock can be awkward for a busy system. The SCH-M can cause a lot of blocking. For example, creating (and dropping) foreign keys requires a SCH-M lock not only on the parent table, but also on the referenced table which leads to trouble.

Click through for a demonstration of the problem. Michael also has some guidance on how to minimize the issue. I’d note the degenerative form of this guidance: understand your data model up-front and apply foreign key constraints at table creation time. That’s not always possible, sure, so when you can’t do that, Michael has some good advice.

Comments closed

Enforcing Constraints across Postgres Partitions

Shaun Thomas explains a rule:

Postgres table partitioning is one of those features that feels like a superpower right up until it isn’t. Just define a partition key, carve up data into manageable chunks, and everything hums along beautifully. And what’s not to love? Partition pruning in query plans, smaller tables, faster maintenance, easy archiving of old data; it’s a smorgasbord of convenience.

Then you try to enforce a unique constraint without including the partition key, and Postgres behaves as if you just asked it to divide by zero. Well… about that.

Click through for an explanation, some workarounds that might work in specific circumstances, and a few closing remarks.

As for SQL Server, the same rule applies. If you want a unique index (which is what a unique key constraint uses under the covers), you must include the partitioning column. If you don’t include it, SQL Server will include it for you rather than giving a hard error.

Comments closed

Word Order and Constraint Naming

Andy Levy is looking for a name:

Ten years (and a couple jobs) ago, I wrote about naming default constraints to avoid having SQL Server name them for you. I closed with the following statement:

SQL Server needs a name for the constraint regardless; it’s worth specifying it yourself.

We’re back with a new wrinkle in the story.

Read on for an interesting scenario where Andy very clearly named a constraint, yet the name didn’t take.

Comments closed

Constraints in PostgreSQL

Gulcin Yildirim Jelinek digs into how PostgreSQL handles database constraints:

Constraints give you fine-grained control over data integrity and if any inserted or default value violates them, PostgreSQL raises an error.

In short, constraints are rules enforced by the database to keep your data valid and consistent. When constraints are not enforced, data issues start to leak in and eventually turn into bugs. Spending time understanding constraints helps prevent subtle data bugs later on.

Read on for information around constraint types in Postgres (including exclusion constraints), as well as triggers and domains. Exclusion constraints are new to me, but apparently allow for things like preventing timeframe overlaps, so that’s pretty useful.

Comments closed

Default Constraints and User-Defined Functions

Erik Darling has a new video. Erik shows how SQL Server handles default constraints that use user-defined functions and how this behaves under a variety of circumstances. There’s also a dive into parallelism and constraints. We also learned Erik’s ability to perform fractional math and how he actually differentiates “scalar” from “scaler,” proving once again that he is not midwestern from his use of extraneous vowel sounds.

1 Comment

Building State Transitions as SQL Constraints

Joe Celko makes a change:

About two decades ago, I introduced the concept of transition constraints to show Data Validation in a database is a lot more complex than seeing if a string parameter really is an integer. In October of 2008, I did an article called Constraint Yourself! on how to use DDL constraints to assure data integrity. One of the topics in that piece was a look at state transition constraints via an auxiliary table.

Read on for an interesting dive into the topic.

Comments closed

Domains in ANSI SQL

Joe Celko describes a domain:

For example, if there though is that there is a domain called voltage which has a base unit called “volt” that’s otherwise meaningless. Yes, you can get a voltmeter you can watch the needle, you can be told what the IEEE specification for defining how much work a volt should do or shock you. I’ve discussed scales and types of measurements in a previous article, It’s worth mentioning that you should not confuse domain with the representation and symbols of the units being used. Some domains are limited, such as degrees that measure planar angles. An angle can be from 0 to 360°, or it can be between zero and 2π radians.

Joe has an explanation but doesn’t have any concrete examples in psql. Here’s one from the PostgreSQL documentation:

CREATE DOMAIN us_postal_code AS TEXT
CHECK(
   VALUE ~ '^\d{5}$'
OR VALUE ~ '^\d{5}-\d{4}$'
);

The idea of a domain here is that you define a valid slice of some data type. We can do something similar with check constraints on an attribute, but the difference is that we’d need to create the check constraint for each relevant attribute, whereas the domain would include this check automatically, making it quite useful if we have multiple instances of, say, us_postal_code in our database. Then, we wouldn’t need to worry about creating a check constraint on each instance and ensuring that the code remains the same across the board.

This also leads to a very common sentiment in functional programming: make invalid states unrepresentable. In other words, make it impossible for a person or piece of code to generate a result in an invalid state. By defining a domain with the scope of our valid state, we make it impossible for someone to create a US postal code value that does not pass our check, and so we can’t have dirty data of this sort in our database.

Comments closed