To delete, Changing the flag of entity VS Moving to another table? - sql

Should I change the column deleted to 1 to consider it as deleted or it is better to move the record to another table?
The flag approach is good because later selects will search less records.
The second approach is a little complex, isn't it?
Which approach is better?


As stated here Comparison Factors are listed below. It is up-to you take the decision based on below factor
Ease of Setup
Soft Delete is easier to implement since it merely involves updating
a column while hard delete would also involve copying the data to be
deleted to an audit table.
Advantage : Soft Delete
Debugging
Soft Delete makes it easy to debug data issues due to the
deleted_flag But debugging via the Audit table is also easily
possible. So its a tie.
Advantage : NA
Restoring data
It is extremely easy to restore data ‘deleted’ via soft delete since
it just involved unsetting the deleted_flag.
However note that restoring data is an extremely rare occurance.
Advantage : Soft Delete
Querying for active data
By experience, I can state that many issues have come up when the
developer has forgotten to add ‘delete_flag = 0’ condition in the
select queries due to which issues came about.
If you are using an ORM like Doctrine with the ‘soft delete’ plugin
enabled, then this will not be an issue since the ORM takes care of
adding this check.
Advantage : Hard Delete
View Simplicity
Having all the data in the tables as active data relates to view
simplicity (WYSIWYG - What you see is what you get)
In Hard delete, all ‘deleted’ data will only be present in the audit
table while the rest of the tables in the system will have ‘active’
data. So the separation of concerns exists for hard delete.
Advantage : Hard Delete
Performance of operation
Update is a bit faster than delete (microseconds)
So soft delete should technically be faster than hard delete (which
also has the audit table insert to consider).
Advantage : Soft Delete
Application Performance
Speed
To support soft deletes, ALL select queries need to have a condition
‘WHERE delete_flag = 0’.
In situations where JOINs are involved there will be multiple such
conditions. Select queries with lesser conditions are faster than
those with conditions.
Advantage : Hard Delete
Size
To support faster soft deletes, we need to have an index for every
delete_flag in EVERY table
Additionally the table size keeps increasing since the table has
‘soft deleted’ data + active data.
Queries can get slower as table size increases.
Advantage : Hard Delete
Database features compatibility
Unique Index
Unique index ensures data integrity by preventing multiple
occurrences of a row at the database level.
Having soft delete prevents usage of Unique index.
Additionally we cannot update the old soft deleted entry of A1-B1
since it would mean rewriting some data which results in loss of
recorded data (eg : update date time or some other deleted_by column
if it exists)
Advantage : Hard Delete
Cascading
For soft delete, we cannot make use of ‘ON DELETE’ cascading. The
alternative is to create an ‘UPDATE’ trigger which keeps track of
deleted_flag.
Advantage : Hard Delete

Related

Oracle BEST PRACTICE to update 50 million child rows in a table using value from parent table

I have a child table with 100 million rows and need to update 50 million rows of a column using the value from the parent table. I have read around that assuming if we have enough space, it would be the fastest to "create table as select", but I want to know if anyone disagrees or if other factors are required in order to make a better guess? Would it be better to go this route versus using pl/sql's BULK COLLECT FORALL UPDATE feature?

If you have a lot of data then CREATE TABLE AS SELECT is definitely faster because it does not require UNDO table space. However, to recreate all the indices on the new table can be quite a hassle due to name conflicts.
Good news is: 50 min rows is not really a lot of data. If you have a modern midrange server it should not cause problems so it is not worth the extra work. The best way to find out is to make a copy of the original table (including all indices) and try the update there. Then you get a rough idea how long it will take.

Parallel UPDATE is probably the best option for a large change to a child table. (If you have Enterprise Edition, sufficient resources, a sane configuration, etc.)
alter session enable parallel dml;
update /*+ parallel */ ...;
(You might want to play with different parallel numbers, like parallel(8). The default degree of parallelism is usually good enough. But some platforms like SPARC inflate their "CPU_COUNT", leading to ridiculous degrees of parallelism.)
Parallel UPDATE is likely not the optimal solution. Recreating the objects can be faster because it can almost completely avoid generating REDO and UNDO. But re-creating objects is usually buggy and getting that optimal performance is tricky.
Here are things to consider before you decide to simply drop and recreate a table:
Grants. Save and re-apply the object grants after the objects are recreated.
Dependent objects. The process needs to re-create all objects, and dependent objects, in the exact same way. This can be painfully difficult depending on how complex your schema is. DBMS_METADATA can be tricky, and in some cases still won't make the objects exactly the same way. If you decide to hard-code the DDL instead you have to remember to update the process whenever the objects change.
Invalid objects. Most objects will automatically recompile when necessary. But you probably don't want to wait for that because it always looks bad to have invalid objects. And even if they do compile correctly, some programs may still get those pesky ORA-04068: existing state of packages has been discarded errors. (Because most PL/SQL programmers are unaware of session state and make every package variable public by default.)
Statistics. Simply re-gathering them after the table is re-created is not always sufficient. Histograms depend on whether columns were used in a predicate. If the table is re-created all the columns are new and no histograms will be initially created.
Direct-path writes are elusive. A parent-child table implies a foreign key, which normally prevents direct-path writes. The process needs to disable or drop the foreign key. And also set the table and index to NOLOGGING, and then remember to set them back to LOGGING at the end. When you re-create the foreign key, if you want to do it in parallel you have to initially create it as NOVALIDATE, set the table to parallel, enable validate the constraint, and then set the table back to NOPARALLEL.
In a large data warehouse it's worth going through all those steps and building code for dealing with all the issues. If this is your only large table UPDATE I suggest you avoid that work and accept a slightly non-optimal solution.

Which database operation is heaviest?

If I perform the CRUD operations on the same table, what is the heaviest operation in terms of performance?
People say DELETE and then INSERT is better than UPDATE in some cases, is this true? Then UPDATE is the heaviest operation?

Like all things in life, it depends.
SQL Server uses WAL (write ahead logging) to maintain ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability) properties.
A insert needs to log entries for data page and index page changes. If page splits occur, it takes longer. Then the data is written to the data file.
A delete marks the data and index pages for re-use. The data will still be there right after the operation.
A update is implemented as an delete and insert. There for double the log entries.
What can help inserts is pre-allocating the space in the data file before running the job. Auto growing the data files is expensive.
In summary, I would expect updates on average to be the most expensive operation.
I am by no way an expert on the storage engine.
Please check out http://www.sqlskills.com - Paul Randals blog and/or Kalen Daleny SQL Server Internals book, http://sqlserverinternals.com/. These authors go in depth on all the cases that might happen.

It depends mostly on foregin keys and indexes which you have on this table. For deletion and isertion every column that is a foreign key and part of an index has to be checked on foreign key references and every index containing that column has to be rebuilt.
If you do DELETE and then INSERT then checking and rebuilding happens twice. If it is a really large table then rebuilding indexes can take very long time and in this case update will be MUCH faster.
Of course if you have index on the key that you're searching with update statement and you are not updating the key.
For a small table with almost no indexes/foreign keys the operations run so fast that it's not a big issue.

Benefit to keeping a record in the database, rather than deleting it, for performance issues?

So I have a client that I am building a Rails app for....I am using PostgreSQL.
He made this comment about preferring to hide records, rather than delete them, and given that this is the first time I have heard about this I figured I would ask you guys to hear your thoughts.
I'd rather hide than delete because deletions in tables eventually lead to table index havoc that causes queries to take longer than expected (much worse than Inserts or Updates). This won't be a problem in the beginning of the site (it gets exponentially worse over time), but seems like an easy issue to never encounter by just not deleting anything (yet) as part of the "everyday" web application functionality. We can always handle deletions much later as part of a Data Optimization & Maintenance process and re-index tables in that process on some (yet to be determined) scheduled basis.
In all the Rails apps I have built, I have never had an issue with records being deleted and it affecting the index.
Am I missing something? Is this a problem that used to exist, but modern RDBMS products have fixed it?

There may be functional reasons for preferring that records not be deleted, but reasons relating to some form of table index "havoc" are almost certainly bogus unless supported by some technical evidence.
You hear this sort of thing quite often in the Oracle world -- that indexes do not re-use space freed up by deletions. It's usually based on some misinterpretation of the facts (eg. that index blocks are not freed for re-use until they are completely empty). Hence you end up with people giving advice to periodically rebuild indexes. If you give these issues some thought, you wonder why the RDBMS developers would not have fixed such an issue, given that it supposedly harms the system performance.
So there may be some piece of Postgres-related, possibly obsolete, information on which this is based, but the onus is really on the person objecting to a perfectly normal type of database operation to come with evidence to support their position.
Another thought: I believe that in Postgres an update is implemented as a delete and insert, hence the advice to vacuum frequently on heavily updated tables. Based on that, updates should also cause the same index problems that are supposed to be associated with deletes.

Other reasons for not deleting the records.
you don't have to worry about cascading a delete through various other tables in the database that reference the row you are deleting
Every bit of data is useful. Debugging and auditing becomes easy.
Easier to rollback if needed.

Create an deleted column in your table and dont index that one.
If you update that record with deleted = 1 or deleted = o only the data needs to be rewriten, the index doesnt have to be updated that saves lots off IO reads and IO writes
This advies goes for all modern RDBMS when they make use of B tree indexes. B tree is an very good algorithm for searching but not for updating and deleting because off high number off IO reads and IO writes thats needed to insert or update node in the node or delete notes from the tree this is also the reason why you should not "over index" your table
"Delete" an record like this
UPDATE table SET deleted = 1 WHERE id = 1 -- if deleted not is indexed assuming id is index as an primary key this also should be fast
Check if an record is deleted
SELECT * FROM table WHERE id = 1 and deleted = 1 -- assuming id is index as an primary key this also should be fast
Check if an record not is deleted
SELECT * FROM table WHERE id = 1 and deleted = 0 -- assuming id is index as an primary key this also should be fast

Optimizing Delete on SQL Server

Deletes on sql server are sometimes slow and I've been often in need to optimize them in order to diminish the needed time.
I've been googleing a bit looking for tips on how to do that, and I've found diverse suggestions.
I'd like to know your favorite and most effective techinques to tame the delete beast, and how and why they work.
until now:
be sure foreign keys have indexes
be sure the where conditions are indexed
use of WITH ROWLOCK
destroy unused indexes, delete, rebuild the indexes
now, your turn.

The following article, Fast Ordered Delete Operations may be of interest to you.
Performing fast SQL Server delete operations
The solution focuses on utilising a view in order to simplify the execution plan produced for a batched delete operation. This is achieved by referencing the given table once, rather than twice which in turn reduces the amount of I/O required.

I have much more experience with Oracle, but very likely the same applies to SQL Server as well:
when deleting a large number of rows, issue a table lock, so the database doesn't have to do lots of row locks
if the table you delete from is referenced by other tables, make sure those other tables have indexes on the foreign key column(s) (otherwise the database will do a full table scan for each deleted row on the other table to ensure that deleting the row doesn't violate the foreign key constraint)

I wonder if it's time for garbage-collecting databases? You mark a row for deletion and the server deletes it later during a sweep. You wouldn't want this for every delete - because sometimes a row must go now - but it would be handy on occasion.

Summary of Answers through 2014-11-05
This answer is flagged as community wiki since this is an ever-evolving topic with a lot of nuances, but very few possible answers overall.
The first issue is you must ask yourself what scenario you're optimizing for? This is generally either performance with a single user on the db, or scale with many users on the db. Sometimes the answers are the exact opposite.
For single user optimization
Hint a TABLELOCK
Remove indexes not used in the delete then rebuild them afterward
Batch using something like SET ROWCOUNT 20000 (or whatever, depending on log space) and loop (perhaps with a WAITFOR DELAY) until you get rid of it all (##ROWCOUNT = 0)
If deleting a large % of table, just make a new one and delete the old table
Partition the rows to delete, then drop the parition. [Read more...]
For multi user optimization
Hint row locks
Use the clustered index
Design clustered index to minimize page re-organization if large blocks are deleted
Update "is_deleted" column, then do actual deletion later during a maintenance window
For general optimization
Be sure FKs have indexes on their source tables
Be sure WHERE clause has indexes
Identify the rows to delete in the WHERE clause with a view or derived table instead of referencing the table directly. [Read more...]

To be honest, deleting a million rows from a table scales just as badly as inserting or updating a million rows. It's the size of the rowset that's the problem, and there's not much you can do about that.
My suggestions:
Make sure that the table has a primary key and clustered index (this is vital for all operations).
Make sure that the clustered index is such that minimal page re-organisation would occur if a large block of rows were to be deleted.
Make sure that your selection criteria are SARGable.
Make sure that all your foreign key constraints are currently trusted.

(if the indexes are "unused", why are they there at all?)
One option I've used in the past is to do the work in batches. The crude way would be to use SET ROWCOUNT 20000 (or whatever) and loop (perhaps with a WAITFOR DELAY) until you get rid of it all (##ROWCOUNT = 0).
This might help reduce the impact upon other systems.

The problem is you haven't defined your conditions enough. I.e. what exactly are you optimizing?
For example, is the system down for nightly maintenance and no users are on the system? And are you deleting a large % of the database?
If offline and deleting a large %, may make sense to just build a new table with data to keep, drop the old table, and rename. If deleting a small %, you likely want to batch things in as large batches as your log space allows. It entirely depends on your database, but dropping indexes for the duration of the rebuild may hurt or help -- if even possible due to being "offline".
If you're online, what's the likelihood your deletes are conflicting with user activity (and is user activity predominantly read, update, or what)? Or, are you trying to optimize for user experience or speed of getting your query done? If you're deleting from a table that's frequently updated by other users, you need to batch but with smaller batch sizes. Even if you do something like a table lock to enforce isolation, that doesn't do much good if your delete statement takes an hour.
When you define your conditions better, you can pick one of the other answers here. I like the link in Rob Sanders' post for batching things.

If you have lots of foreign key tables, start at the bottom of the chain and work up. The final delete will go faster and block less things if there are no child records to cascade delete (which I would NOT turn on if I had a large number fo child tables as it will kill performance).
Delete in batches.
If you have foreign key tables that are no longer being used (you'd be surprised how often production databses end up with old tables nobody will get rid of), get rid of them or at least break the FK/PK connection. No sense cheking a table for records if it isn't being used.
Don't delete - mark records as delted and then exclude marked records from all queries. This is best set up at the time of database design. A lot of people use this because it is also the best fastest way to get back records accidentlally deleted. But it is a lot of work to set up in an already existing system.

I'll add another one to this:
Make sure your transaction isolation level and database options are set appropriately. If your SQL server is set not to use row versioning, or you're using an isolation level on other queries where you will wait for the rows to be deleted, you could be setting yourself up for some very poor performance while the operation is happening.

On very large tables where you have a very specific set of criteria for deletes, you could also partition the table, switch out the partition, and then process the deletions.
The SQLCAT team has been using this technique on really really large volumes of data. I found some references to it here but I'll try and find something more definitive.

I think, the big trap with delete that kill the performance is that sql after each row deleted, it updates all the related indexes for any column in this row. what about delting all indexes before bulk delete?

There are deletes and then there are deletes. If you are aging out data as part of a trim job, you will hopefully be able to delete contiguous blocks of rows by clustered key. If you have to age out data from a high volume table that is not contiguous it is very very painful.

If it is true that UPDATES are faster than DELETES, you could add a status column called DELETED and filter on it in your selects. Then run a proc at night that does the actual deletes.

Do you have foreign keys with referential integrity activated?
Do you have triggers active?

Simplify any use of functions in your WHERE clause! Example:
DELETE FROM Claims
WHERE dbo.YearMonthGet(DataFileYearMonth) = dbo.YearMonthGet(#DataFileYearMonth)
This form of the WHERE clause required 8 minutes to delete 125,837 records.
The YearMonthGet function composed a date with the year and month from the input date and set day = 1. This was to ensure we deleted records based on year and month but not day of month.
I rewrote the WHERE clause to:
WHERE YEAR(DataFileYearMonth) = YEAR(#DataFileYearMonth)
AND MONTH(DataFileYearMonth) = MONTH(#DataFileYearMonth)
The result: The delete required about 38-44 seconds to delete those 125,837 records!

Physical vs. logical (hard vs. soft) delete of database record? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
What is the advantage of doing a logical/soft delete of a record (i.e. setting a flag stating that the record is deleted) as opposed to actually or physically deleting the record?
Is this common practice?
Is this secure?

Advantages are that you keep the history (good for auditing) and you don't have to worry about cascading a delete through various other tables in the database that reference the row you are deleting. Disadvantage is that you have to code any reporting/display methods to take the flag into account.
As far as if it is a common practice - I would say yes, but as with anything whether you use it depends on your business needs.
EDIT: Thought of another disadvantange - If you have unique indexes on the table, deleted records will still take up the "one" record, so you have to code around that possibility too (for example, a User table that has a unique index on username; A deleted record would still block the deleted users username for new records. Working around this you could tack on a GUID to the deleted username column, but it's a very hacky workaround that I wouldn't recommend. Probably in that circumstance it would be better to just have a rule that once a username is used, it can never be replaced.)

Are logical deletes common practice? Yes I have seen this in many places. Are they secure? That really depends are they any less secure then the data was before you deleted it?
When I was a Tech Lead, I demanded that our team keep every piece of data, I knew at the time that we would be using all that data to build various BI applications, although at the time we didn't know what the requirements would be. While this was good from the standpoint of auditing, troubleshooting, and reporting (This was an e-commerce / tools site for B2B transactions, and if someone used a tool, we wanted to record it even if their account was later turned off), it did have several downsides.
The downsides include (not including others already mentioned):
Performance Implications of keeping all that data, We to develop various archiving strategies. For example one area of the application was getting close to generating around 1Gb of data a week.
Cost of keeping the data does grow over time, while disk space is cheap, the amount of infrastructure to keep and manage terabytes of data both online and off line is a lot. It takes a lot of disk for redundancy, and people's time to ensure backups are moving swiftly etc.
When deciding to use logical, physical deletes, or archiving I would ask myself these questions:
Is this data that might need to be re-inserted into the table. For example User Accounts fit this category as you might activate or deactivate a user account. If this is the case a logical delete makes the most sense.
Is there any intrinsic value in storing the data? If so how much data will be generated. Depending on this I would either go with a logical delete, or implement an archiving strategy. Keep in mind you can always archive logically deleted records.

It might be a little late but I suggest everyone to check Pinal Dave's blog post about logical/soft delete:
I just do not like this kind of design [soft delete] at all. I am firm believer of the architecture where only necessary data should be in single table and the useless data should be moved to an archived table. Instead of following the isDeleted column, I suggest the usage of two different tables: one with orders and another with deleted orders. In that case, you will have to maintain both the table, but in reality, it is very easy to maintain. When you write UPDATE statement to the isDeleted column, write INSERT INTO another table and DELETE it from original table. If the situation is of rollback, write another INSERT INTO and DELETE in reverse order. If you are worried about a failed transaction, wrap this code in TRANSACTION.
What are the advantages of the smaller table verses larger table in above described situations?
A smaller table is easy to maintain
Index Rebuild operations are much faster
Moving the archive data to another filegroup will reduce the load of primary filegroup (considering that all filegroups are on different system) – this will also speed up the backup as well.
Statistics will be frequently updated due to smaller size and this will be less resource intensive.
Size of the index will be smaller
Performance of the table will improve with a smaller table size.

I'm a NoSQL developer, and on my last job, I worked with data that was always critical for someone, and if it was deleted by accident in the same day that was created, I were not able to find it in the last backup from yesterday! In that situation, soft deletion always saved the day.
I did soft-deletion using timestamps, registering the date the document was deleted:
IsDeleted = 20150310 //yyyyMMdd
Every Sunday, a process walked on the database and checked the IsDeleted field. If the difference between the current date and the timestamp was greater than N days, the document was hard deleted. Considering the document still be available on some backup, it was safe to do it.
EDIT: This NoSQL use case is about big documents created in the database, tens or hundreds of them every day, but not thousands or millions. By general, they were documents with the status, data and attachments of workflow processes. That was the reason why there was the possibility of a user deletes an important document. This user could be someone with Admin privileges, or maybe the document's owner, just to name a few.
TL;DR My use case was not Big Data. In that case, you will need a different approach.

One pattern I have used is to create a mirror table and attach a trigger on the primary table, so all deletes (and updates if desired) are recorded in the mirror table.
This allows you to "reconstruct" deleted/changed records, and you can still hard delete in the primary table and keep it "clean" - it also allows the creation of an "undo" function, and you can also record the date, time, and user who did the action in the mirror table (invaluable in witch hunt situations).
The other advantage is there is no chance of accidentally including deleted records when querying off the primary unless you deliberately go to the trouble of including records from the mirror table (you may want to show live and deleted records).
Another advantage is that the mirror table can be independently purged, as it should not have any actual foreign key references, making this a relatively simple operation in comparison to purging from a primary table that uses soft deletes but still has referential connections to other tables.
What other advantages? - great if you have a bunch of coders working on the project, doing reads on the database with mixed skill and attention to detail levels, you don't have to stay up nights hoping that one of them didn’t forget to not include deleted records (lol, Not Include Deleted Records = True), which results in things like overstating say the clients available cash position which they then go buy some shares with (i.e., as in a trading system), when you work with trading systems, you will find out very quickly the value of robust solutions, even though they may have a little bit more initial "overhead".
Exceptions:
- as a guide, use soft deletes for "reference" data such as user, category, etc, and hard deletes to a mirror table for "fact" type data, i.e., transaction history.

I used to do soft-delete, just to keep old records. I realized that users don't bother to view old records as often as I thought. If users want to view old records, they can just view from archive or audit table, right? So, what's the advantage of soft-delete? It only leads to more complex query statement, etc.
Following are the things i've implemented, before I decided to not-soft-delete anymore:
implement audit, to record all activities (add,edit,delete). Ensure that there's no foreign key linked to audit, and ensure this table is secured and nobody can delete except administrators.
identify which tables are considered "transactional table", which very likely that it will be kept for long time, and very likely user may want to view the past records or reports. For example; purchase transaction. This table should not just keep the id of master table (such as dept-id), but also keep the additional info such as the name as reference (such as dept-name), or any other necessary fields for reporting.
Implement "active/inactive" or "enable/disable" or "hide/show" record of master table. So, instead of deleting record, the user can disable/inactive the master record. It is much safer this way.
Just my two cents opinion.

I'm a big fan of the logical delete, especially for a Line of Business application, or in the context of user accounts. My reasons are simple: often times I don't want a user to be able to use the system anymore (so the account get's marked as deleted), but if we deleted the user, we'd lose all their work and such.
Another common scenario is that the users might get re-created a while after having been delete. It's a much nicer experience for the user to have all their data present as it was before they were deleted, rather than have to re-create it.
I usually think of deleting users more as "suspending" them indefinitely. You never know when they'll legitimately need to be back.

I commonly use logical deletions - I find they work well when you also intermittently archive off the 'deleted' data to an archived table (which can be searched if needed) thus having no chance of affecting the performance of the application.
It works well because you still have the data if you're ever audited. If you delete it physically, it's gone!

I almost always soft delete and here's why:
you can restore deleted data if a customer asks you to do so. More happy customers with soft deletes. Restoring specific data from backups is complex
checking for isdeleted everywhere is not an issue, you have to check for userid anyway (if the database contains data from multiple users). You can enforce the check by code, by placing those two checks on a separate function (or use views)
graceful delete. Users or processes dealing with deleted content will continue to "see" it until they hit the next refresh. This is a very desirable feature if a process is processing some data which is suddenly deleted
synchronization: if you need to design a synchronization mechanism between a database and mobile apps, you'll find soft deletes much easier to implement

Re: "Is this secure?" - that depends on what you mean.
If you mean that by doing physical delete, you'll prevent anyone from ever finding the deleted data, then yes, that's more or less true; you're safer in physically deleting the sensitive data that needs to be erased, because that means it's permanently gone from the database. (However, realize that there may be other copies of the data in question, such as in a backup, or the transaction log, or a recorded version from in transit, e.g. a packet sniffer - just because you delete from your database doesn't guarantee it wasn't saved somewhere else.)
If you mean that by doing logical delete, your data is more secure because you'll never lose any data, that's also true. This is good for audit scenarios; I tend to design this way because it admits the basic fact that once data is generated, it'll never really go away (especially if it ever had the capability of being, say, cached by an internet search engine). Of course, a real audit scenario requires that not only are deletes logical, but that updates are also logged, along with the time of the change and the actor who made the change.
If you mean that the data won't fall into the hands of anyone who isn't supposed to see it, then that's totally up to your application and its security structure. In that respect, logical delete is no more or less secure than anything else in your database.

Logical deletions if are hard on referential integrity.
It is the right think to do when there is a temporal aspect of the table data (are valid FROM_DATE - TO_DATE).
Otherwise move the data to an Auditing Table and delete the record.
On the plus side:
It is the easier way to rollback (if at all possible).
It is easy to see what was the state at a specific point in time.

I strongly disagree with logical delete because you are exposed to many errors.
First of all queries, each query must take care the IsDeleted field and the possibility of error becomes higher with complex queries.
Second the performance: imagine a table with 100000 recs with only 3 active, now multiply this number for the tables of your database; another performance problem is a possible conflict with new records with old (deleted records).
The only advantage I see is the history of records, but there are other methods to achieve this result, for example you can create a logging table where you can save info: TableName,OldValues,NewValues,Date,User,[..] where *Values ​​can be varchar and write the details in this form fieldname : value; [..] or store the info as xml.
All this can be achieved via code or Triggers but you are only ONE table with all your history.
Another options is to see if the specified database engine are native support for tracking change, for example on SQL Server database there are SQL Track Data Change.

It's fairly standard in cases where you'd like to keep a history of something (e.g. user accounts as #Jon Dewees mentions). And it's certainly a great idea if there's a strong chance of users asking for un-deletions.
If you're concerned about the logic of filtering out the deleted records from your queries getting messy and just complicating your queries, you can just build views that do the filtering for you and use queries against that. It'll prevent leakage of these records in reporting solutions and such.

There are requirements beyond system design which need to be answered. What is the legal or statutory requirement in the record retention? Depending on what the rows are related to, there may be a legal requirement that the data be kept for a certain period of time after it is 'suspended'.
On the other hand, the requirement may be that once the record is 'deleted', it is truly and irrevocably deleted. Before you make a decision, talk to your stakeholders.

Mobile apps that depend on synchronisation might impose the use of logical rather than physical delete: a server must be able to indicate to the client that a record has been (marked as) deleted, and this might not be possible if records were physically deleted.

I just wanted to expand on the mentioned unique constraint problem.
Suppose I have a table with two columns: id and my_column. To support soft-deletes I need to update my table definition to this:
create table mytable (
id serial primary key,
my_column varchar unique not null,
deleted_at datetime
)
But if a row is soft-deleted, I want my_column constraint to be ignored, because deleted data should not interfere with non-deleted data. My original model will not work.
I would need to update my data definition to this:
create table mytable (
id serial primary key,
my_column varchar not null,
my_column_repetitions integer not null default 0,
deleted_at datetime,
unique (my_column, my_column_repetitions),
check (deleted_at is not null and my_column_repetitions > 0 or deleted_at is null and my_column_repetitions = 0)
)
And apply this logic: when a row is current, i.e. not deleted, my_column_repetitions should hold the default value 0 and when the row is soft-deleted its my_column_repetitions needs to be updated to (max. number of repetitions on soft-deleted rows) + 1.
The latter logic must be implemented programmatically with a trigger or handled in my application code and there is no check that I could set.
Repeat this is for every unique column!
I think this solution is really hacky and would favor a separate archive table to store deleted rows.

They don't let the database perform as it should rendering such things as the cascade functionality useless.
For simple things such as inserts, in the case of re-inserting, then the code behind it doubles.
You can't just simply insert, instead you have to check for an existence and insert if it doesn't exist before or update the deletion flag if it does whilst also updating all other columns to the new values. This is seen as an update to the database transaction log and not a fresh insert causing inaccurate audit logs.
They cause performance issues because tables are getting glogged with redundant data. It plays havock with indexing especially with uniqueness.
I'm not a big fan of logical deletes.

To reply to Tohid's comment, we faced same problem where we wanted to persist history of records and also we were not sure whether we wanted is_deleted column or not.
I am talking about our python implementation and a similar use-case we hit.
We encountered https://github.com/kvesteri/sqlalchemy-continuum which is an easy way to get versioning table for your corresponding table. Minimum lines of code and captures history for add, delete and update.
This serves more than just is_deleted column. You can always backref version table to check what happened with this entry. Whether entry got deleted, updated or added.
This way we didn't need to have is_deleted column at all and our delete function was pretty trivial. This way we also don't need to remember to mark is_deleted=False in any of our api's.

Soft Delete is a programming practice that being followed in most of the application when data is more relevant. Consider a case of financial application where a delete by the mistake of the end user can be fatal.
That is the case when soft delete becomes relevant. In soft delete the user is not actually deleting the data from the record instead its being flagged as IsDeleted to true (By normal convention).
In EF 6.x or EF 7 onward Softdelete is Added as an attribute but we have to create a custom attribute for the time being now.
I strongly recommend SoftDelete In a database design and its a good convention for the programming practice.

Most of time softdeleting is used because you don't want to expose some data but you have to keep it for historical reasons (A product could become discontinued, so you don't want any new transaction with it but you still need to work with the history of sale transaction). By the way, some are copying the product information value in the sale transaction data instead of making a reference to the product to handle this.
In fact it looks more like a rewording for a visible/hidden or active/inactive feature. Because that's the meaning of "delete" in business world. I'd like to say that Terminators may delete people but boss just fire them.
This practice is pretty common pattern and used by a lot of application for a lot of reasons. As It's not the only way to achieve this, so you will have thousand of people saying that's great or bullshit and both have pretty good arguments.
From a point of view of security, SoftDelete won't replace the job of Audit and it won't replace the job of backup too. If you are afraid of "the insert/delete between two backup case", you should read about Full or Bulk recovery Models. I admit that SoftDelete could make the recovery process more trivial.
Up to you to know your requirement.

To give an alternative, we have users using remote devices updating via MobiLink. If we delete records in the server database, those records never get marked deleted in the client databases.
So we do both. We work with our clients to determine how long they wish to be able to recover data. For example, generally customers and products are active until our client say they should be deleted, but history of sales is only retained for 13 months and then deletes automatically. The client may want to keep deleted customers and products for two months but retain history for six months.
So we run a script overnight that marks things logically deleted according to these parameters and then two/six months later, anything marked logically deleted today will be hard deleted.
We're less about data security than about having enormous databases on a client device with limited memory, such as a smartphone. A client who orders 200 products twice a week for four years will have over 81,000 lines of history, of which 75% the client doesn't care if he sees.

It all depends on the use case of the system and its data.
For example, if you are talking about a government regulated system (e.g. a system at a pharmaceutical company that is considered a part of the quality system and must follow FDA guidelines for electronic records), then you darned well better not do hard deletes! An auditor from the FDA can come in and ask for all records in the system relating to product number ABC-123, and all data better be available. If your business process owner says the system shouldn't allow anyone to use product number ABC-123 on new records going forward, use the soft-delete method instead to make it "inactive" within the system, while still preserving historical data.
However, maybe your system and its data has a use case such as "tracking the weather at the North Pole". Maybe you take temperature readings once every hour, and at the end of the day aggregate a daily average. Maybe the hourly data will no longer ever be used after aggregation, and you'd hard-delete the hourly readings after creating the aggregate. (This is a made-up, trivial example.)
The point is, it all depends on the use case of the system and its data, and not a decision to be made purely from a technological standpoint.

Well! As everyone said, it depends on the situation.
If you have an index on a column like UserName or EmailID - and you never expect the same UserName or EmailID to be used again; you can go with a soft delete.
That said, always check if your SELECT operation uses the primary key. If your SELECT statement uses a primary key, adding a flag with the WHERE clause wouldn't make much difference. Let's take an example (Pseudo):
Table Users (UserID [primary key], EmailID, IsDeleted)
SELECT * FROM Users where UserID = 123456 and IsDeleted = 0
This query won't make any difference in terms of performance since the UserID column has a primary key. Initially, it will scan the table based on PK and then execute the next condition.
Cases where soft deletes cannot work at all:
Sign-up in majorly all websites take EmailID as your unique identification. We know very well, once an EmailID is used on a website like facebook, G+, it cannot be used by anyone else.
There comes a day when the user wants to delete his/her profile from the website. Now, if you make a logical delete, that user won't be able to register ever again. Also, registering again using the same EmailID wouldn't mean to restore the entire history. Everyone knows, deletion means deletion. In such scenarios, we have to make a physical delete. But in order to maintain the entire history of the account, we should always archive such records in either archive tables or deleted tables.
Yes, in situations where we have lots of foreign tables, handling is quite cumbersome.
Also keep in mind that soft/logical deletes will increase your table size, so the index size.

I have already answered in another post.
However, I think my answer more fit to the question here.
My practical solution for soft-delete is archiving by creating a new
table with following columns: original_id, table_name, payload,
(and an optional primary key `id).
Where original_id is the original id of deleted record, table_name
is the table name of the deleted record ("user" in your case),
payload is JSON-stringified string from all columns of the deleted
record.
I also suggest making an index on the column original_id for latter
data retrievement.
By this way of archiving data. You will have these advantages
Keep track of all data in history
Have only one place to archive records from any table, regardless of the deleted record's table structure
No worry of unique index in the original table
No worry of checking foreign index in the original table
No more WHERE clause in every query to check for deletion
The is already a discussion
here explaining why
soft-deletion is not a good idea in practice. Soft-delete introduces
some potential troubles in future such as counting records, ...

It depends on the case, consider the below:
Usually, you don't need to "soft-delete" a record.
Keep it simple and fast.
e.g. Deleting a product no longer available, so you don't have to check the product isn't soft-deleted all over your app (count, product list, recommended products, etc.).
Yet, you might consider the "soft-delete" in a data warehouse model. e.g. You are viewing an old receipt on a deleted product.*

Advantages are data preservation/perpetuation. A disadvantage would be a decrease in performance when querying or retrieving data from tables with significant number of soft deletes.
In our case we use a combination of both: as others have mentioned in previous answers, we soft-delete users/clients/customers for example, and hard-delete on items/products/merchandise tables where there are duplicated records that don't need to be kept.