I have a fairly simple design, as follows:
What I want to achieve in my grouping_individual_history is marked in red:
when a session is deleted, I want to cascade delete the grouping_history....
when a grouping is deleted, I just want the child field to be nullified
It seems that MSSQL will not allow me to have more than one FK that does something else than no action ... It'll complain with:
Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_grouping_individual_history_grouping' on table 'grouping_individual_history' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints.
I've already read this post (https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2733/solving-the-sql-server-multiple-cascade-path-issue-with-a-trigger/), although it's not quite the same scenario it seems to me.
I've tried doing a INSTEAD OF DELETE trigger on my grouping table, but it wont accept it, because in turn, my grouping table has another FK (fkSessionID) that does a cascade delete... So, the fix would be to change it all, in all affected tables with FKs. The chain is long though, and we cannot consider it.
For one thing, can someone explain to me why SQL Server is giving me the issue for this very simple scenario in the first place? I just don't understand it.
Is there another workaround I could use (besides just removing the foreign key link from my grouping_individual_history table)?
Related
I have a main table with many associated tables linked to it using an "id" foreign key.
I need to update a row in this main table.
Instead of updating all the fields of the row, one by one, it would be easier for me to simply deleting the whole row and recreating it with the new values (by keeping the original primary key!).
Is there a way, inside a transaction, to delete such row that has foreign key constraints if the row is recreated, with the same primary key, before the transaction is actually commited?
I tried it, and it doesn't seem to work...
Is there something I can do to achieve that other than dropping the constraints before my DELETE operation? Some kind of lock?
No.
Without dropping/disabling the constraint, SQL Server will enforce the relationship and prevent you from the deleting the referenced row.
It is possible to disable the constraint, but you'll incur the overhead when enabling it that SQL Server must verify EVERY REFERENCE to that key before it will consider the relationships trusted again.
You are much better off taking the time to develop a separate update/upsert function than to incur that additional processing overhead every time you need to change a record.
You could alter the foreign key to use a CASCADE DELETE, but that has its own overhead and baggage.
Let's say I have a Customers table with columns ID and CompanyId.
I need to delete some companies from the DB.
The problem is, the table has a lot of child tables and those tables also has a lot of child tables and so on...
Just to clarify, all the relationships are with constraints.
How can I accomplish that ?
Thanks.
EDIT: Notice that what i'm trying to do is a one time operation.
Whether i will change the constraints or add triggers or anything like that, I'm planning on removing it in the end.
The inbuilt solution to this problem is to set up your FK constraints with ON DELETE CASCADE.
However many people (myself included) are somewhat uneasy about doing this as a mistaken delete will silently propagate through the database.
Here are three ways:
Use a stored procedure to delete child first then up to the parent row in a transation.
I personally wouldn't make it dynamic and would have a specific "DeleteCompany" proc. Your may need a rule that such as "no delete if sales > 100 million" that needs checked
CASCADE DELETEs on your foreign keys
This can be tricky if you have multiple cascade paths, but simple otherwise
INSTEAD OF trigger
An INSTEAD OF trigger is like a stored procedure in operation. Note: You'll get an FK violation before an AFTER trigger fires
Personally, I'd use a stored proc so I have explicit deletes. The effect is the same as cascading FKs but more obvious.
For SQL Server 2008, this is the solution:
Generate Delete Statement From Foreign Key Relationships in SQL 2008?
With this solution, you can easily find the correct sequence of DELETE respecting, in the meantime, the foreign keys' relationships.
If you are interested in this theme, you can read also the ORACLE PL/SQL solution:
How to generate DELETE statements in PL/SQL, based on the tables FK relations?
This is a 2 part question.
Question 1: I am trying to create a foreign key on a table where I need to turn off the "Check Existing Data on Creation or Re-Enabling". I know theres an option visually but I'm looking for a way to do it programmatically. Is there anyway to do this?
Question 2: I have a code table and two tables A and B that need to reference that code table. I want to have these both referenced from a relationship table but I want to able to use the same column. Can I have 2 foreign keys pointing to the same column?
Yes you can have the same column inthe parent table refer to differnt columns in multiple tables.
I do not recommend turning off checking FK on creation. If you have bad data now, you need to fix it now. Otherwise the first time someone edits one of those records it will fail the FK check then.
From Books online as to why it is a bad idea to use nocheck:
If you do not want to verify new CHECK
or FOREIGN KEY constraints against
existing data, use WITH NOCHECK. We do
not recommend doing this, except in
rare cases. The new constraint will be
evaluated in all later data updates.
Any constraint violations that are
suppressed by WITH NOCHECK when the
constraint is added may cause future
updates to fail if they update rows
with data that does not comply with
the constraint.
Our application uses an Oracle 10g database where several primary keys are exposed to the end user. Productcodes and such. Unfortunately it's to late to do anything with this, as there are tons of reports and custom scripts out there that we do not have control over. We can't redefine the primary keys or mess up the database structure.
Now some customer want to change some of the primary key values. What they initially wanted to call P23A1 should now be called CAT23MOD1 (not a real example, but you get my meaning.)
Is there an easy way to do this? I would prefer a script of some sort, that could be parametrized to fit other tables and keys, but external tools would be acceptable if no other way exists.
The problem is presumably with the foreign keys that reference the PK. You must define the foreign keys as "deferrable initially immediate", as described in this Tom Kyte article: http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/03-nov/o63asktom.html
That lets you ...
Defer the constraints
Modify the parent value
Modify the child values
Commit the change
Simple.
Oops. A little googling makes it appear that, inexplicably, Oracle does not implement ON UPDATE CASCADE, only ON DELETE CASCADE. To find workarounds google ORACLE ON UPDATE CASCADE. Here's a link on Creating A Cascade Update Set of Tables in Oracle.
Original answer:
If I understand correctly, you want to change the values of data in primary key columns, not the actual constraint names of the keys themselves.
If this is true it can most easily be accomplished redefining ALL the foreign keys that reference the affected primary key constraint as ON UPDATE CASCADE. This means that when you make a change to the primary key value, the engine will automatically update all related values in foreign key tables.
Be aware that if this results in a lot of changes it could be prohibitively expensive in a production system.
If you have to do this on a live system with no DDL changes to the tables involved, then I think your only option is to (for each value of the PK that needs to be changed):
Insert into the parent table a copy of the row with the PK value replaced
For each child table, update the FK value to the new PK value
Delete the parent table row with the old PK value
If you have a list of parent tables and the PK values to be renamed, it shouldn't be too hard to write a procedure that does this - the information in USER_CONSTRAINTS can be used to get the FK-related tables for a given parent table.
Can anyone provide a clear explanation / example of what these functions do, and when it's appropriate to use them?
Straight from the manual...
We know that the foreign keys disallow creation of orders that do not relate to any products. But what if a product is removed after an order is created that references it? SQL allows you to handle that as well. Intuitively, we have a few options:
Disallow deleting a referenced product
Delete the orders as well
Something else?
CREATE TABLE order_items (
product_no integer REFERENCES products ON DELETE RESTRICT,
order_id integer REFERENCES orders ON DELETE CASCADE,
quantity integer,
PRIMARY KEY (product_no, order_id)
);
Restricting and cascading deletes are the two most common options. RESTRICT prevents deletion of a referenced row. NO ACTION means that if any referencing rows still exist when the constraint is checked, an error is raised; this is the default behavior if you do not specify anything. (The essential difference between these two choices is that NO ACTION allows the check to be deferred until later in the transaction, whereas RESTRICT does not.) CASCADE specifies that when a referenced row is deleted, row(s) referencing it should be automatically deleted as well. There are two other options: SET NULL and SET DEFAULT. These cause the referencing columns to be set to nulls or default values, respectively, when the referenced row is deleted. Note that these do not excuse you from observing any constraints. For example, if an action specifies SET DEFAULT but the default value would not satisfy the foreign key, the operation will fail.
Analogous to ON DELETE there is also ON UPDATE which is invoked when a referenced column is changed (updated). The possible actions are the same.
edit: You might want to take a look at this related question: When/Why to use Cascading in SQL Server?. The concepts behind the question/answers are the same.
I have a PostGreSQL database and I use On Delete when I have a user that I delete from the database and I need to delete it's information from other table. This ways I need to do only 1 delete and FK that has ON delete will delete information from other table.
You can do the same with ON Update. If you update the table and the field have a FK with On Update, if a change is made on the FK you will be noticed on the FK table.
What Daok says is true... it can be rather convenient. On the other hand, having things happen automagically in the database can be a real problem, especially when it comes to eliminating data. It's possible that in the future someone will count on the fact that FKs usually prevent deletion of parents when there are children and not realize that your use of On Delete Cascade not only doesn't prevent deletion, it makes huge amounts of data in dozens of other tables go away thanks to a waterfall of cascading deletes.
#Arthur's comment.
The more frequently "hidden" things happen in the database the less likely it becomes that anyone will ever have a good handle on what is going on. Triggers (and this is essentially a trigger) can cause my simple action of deleting a row, to have wide ranging consequences throughout my database. I issue a Delete statement and 17 tables are affected with cascades of triggers and constraints and none of this is immediately apparent to the issuer of the command. OTOH, If I place the deletion of the parent and all its children in a procedure then it is very easy and clear for anyone to see EXACTLY what is going to happen when I issue the command.
It has absolutely nothing to do with how well I design a database. It has everything to do with the operational issues introduced by triggers.
Instead of writing the method to do all the work, of the cascade delete or cascade update, you could simply write a warning message instead. A lot easier than reinventing the wheel, and it makes it clear to the client (and new developers picking up the code)