Lets say I have two tables - User and Post
I introduced a customized Join table Vote to have a many-to-many relationship between User and Post.
The tables have following structure:
User (UseId, Name)
Post (PostId, UserId, Content)
Vote(Id, UserId, PostId, Value)
Notes:
The emphasized columns of each table is a PK.
The UserId in Post is a FK to User table.
The UserId and PostId columns in Vote table are FK to the
respective tables.
Other columns like Value, Content, Name, etc. are varchar.
Considering the above design is appropriate (if not, suggestions are welcomed :) .....
What I want is:
If a row in Post Table is deleted, the related row in Vote should also be deleted.
If a row in User Table is deleted, the related row in Vote should also be deleted.
If a row in User Table is deleted, the related row's UserId column in Post should be set to NULL.
Can I achieve such kind of relationships, without any Cyclic-Redundancy? If yes, How?
UPDATE:
Check out this awesome answer if you too have faced multiple cascade paths:
You are looking for cascading foreign key relationships. For the first two:
alter table vote
add constraint fk_vote_user
foreign key (userid) references user(userid) on delete cascade;
alter table vote
add constraint fk_vote_post
foreign key (postid) references post(postid) on delete cascade;
For the third:
alter table post
add constraint fk_post_user
foreign key (userid) references user(userid) on delete set null;
These are explained in the documentation.
One way is to add isdeleted bit, changed datetime columns to each table and use triggers to update column values on delete. In that case you will keep history of your votes, posts and users.
Or just on delete triggers.
Or to use cascade relationship as Gordon Linoff posted.
I have a problem when I try to add constraints to my tables. I get the error:
Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK74988DB24B3C886' on table 'Employee' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints.
My constraint is between a Code table and an employee table. The Code table contains Id, Name, FriendlyName, Type and a Value. The employee has a number of fields that reference codes, so that there can be a reference for each type of code.
I need for the fields to be set to null if the code that is referenced is deleted.
Any ideas how I can do this?
SQL Server does simple counting of cascade paths and, rather than trying to work out whether any cycles actually exist, it assumes the worst and refuses to create the referential actions (CASCADE): you can and should still create the constraints without the referential actions. If you can't alter your design (or doing so would compromise things) then you should consider using triggers as a last resort.
FWIW resolving cascade paths is a complex problem. Other SQL products will simply ignore the problem and allow you to create cycles, in which case it will be a race to see which will overwrite the value last, probably to the ignorance of the designer (e.g. ACE/Jet does this). I understand some SQL products will attempt to resolve simple cases. Fact remains, SQL Server doesn't even try, plays it ultra safe by disallowing more than one path and at least it tells you so.
Microsoft themselves advises the use of triggers instead of FK constraints.
A typical situation with multiple cascasing paths will be this:
A master table with two details, let's say "Master" and "Detail1" and "Detail2". Both details are cascade delete. So far no problems. But what if both details have a one-to-many-relation with some other table (say "SomeOtherTable"). SomeOtherTable has a Detail1ID-column AND a Detail2ID-column.
Master { ID, masterfields }
Detail1 { ID, MasterID, detail1fields }
Detail2 { ID, MasterID, detail2fields }
SomeOtherTable {ID, Detail1ID, Detail2ID, someothertablefields }
In other words: some of the records in SomeOtherTable are linked with Detail1-records and some of the records in SomeOtherTable are linked with Detail2 records. Even if it is guaranteed that SomeOtherTable-records never belong to both Details, it is now impossible to make SomeOhterTable's records cascade delete for both details, because there are multiple cascading paths from Master to SomeOtherTable (one via Detail1 and one via Detail2).
Now you may already have understood this. Here is a possible solution:
Master { ID, masterfields }
DetailMain { ID, MasterID }
Detail1 { DetailMainID, detail1fields }
Detail2 { DetailMainID, detail2fields }
SomeOtherTable {ID, DetailMainID, someothertablefields }
All ID fields are key-fields and auto-increment. The crux lies in the DetailMainId fields of the Detail tables. These fields are both key and referential contraint. It is now possible to cascade delete everything by only deleting master-records. The downside is that for each detail1-record AND for each detail2 record, there must also be a DetailMain-record (which is actually created first to get the correct and unique id).
I would point out that (functionally) there's a BIG difference between cycles and/or multiple paths in the SCHEMA and the DATA. While cycles and perhaps multipaths in the DATA could certainly complicated processing and cause performance problems (cost of "properly" handling), the cost of these characteristics in the schema should be close to zero.
Since most apparent cycles in RDBs occur in hierarchical structures (org chart, part, subpart, etc.) it is unfortunate that SQL Server assumes the worst; i.e., schema cycle == data cycle. In fact, if you're using RI constraints you can't actually build a cycle in the data!
I suspect the multipath problem is similar; i.e., multiple paths in the schema don't necessarily imply multiple paths in the data, but I have less experience with the multipath problem.
Of course if SQL Server did allow cycles it'd still be subject to a depth of 32, but that's probably adequate for most cases. (Too bad that's not a database setting however!)
"Instead of Delete" triggers don't work either. The second time a table is visited, the trigger is ignored. So, if you really want to simulate a cascade you'll have to use stored procedures in the presence of cycles. The Instead-of-Delete-Trigger would work for multipath cases however.
Celko suggests a "better" way to represent hierarchies that doesn't introduce cycles, but there are tradeoffs.
There is an article available in which explains how to perform multiple deletion paths using triggers. Maybe this is useful for complex scenarios.
http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2733/solving-the-sql-server-multiple-cascade-path-issue-with-a-trigger/
By the sounds of it you have an OnDelete/OnUpdate action on one of your existing Foreign Keys, that will modify your codes table.
So by creating this Foreign Key, you'd be creating a cyclic problem,
E.g. Updating Employees, causes Codes to changed by an On Update Action, causes Employees to be changed by an On Update Action... etc...
If you post your Table Definitions for both tables, & your Foreign Key/constraint definitions we should be able to tell you where the problem is...
This is because Emplyee might have Collection of other entity say Qualifications and Qualification might have some other collection Universities
e.g.
public class Employee{
public virtual ICollection<Qualification> Qualifications {get;set;}
}
public class Qualification{
public Employee Employee {get;set;}
public virtual ICollection<University> Universities {get;set;}
}
public class University{
public Qualification Qualification {get;set;}
}
On DataContext it could be like below
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder){
modelBuilder.Entity<Qualification>().HasRequired(x=> x.Employee).WithMany(e => e.Qualifications);
modelBuilder.Entity<University>.HasRequired(x => x.Qualification).WithMany(e => e.Universities);
}
in this case there is chain from Employee to Qualification and From Qualification to Universities. So it was throwing same exception to me.
It worked for me when I changed
modelBuilder.Entity<Qualification>().**HasRequired**(x=> x.Employee).WithMany(e => e.Qualifications);
To
modelBuilder.Entity<Qualification>().**HasOptional**(x=> x.Employee).WithMany(e => e.Qualifications);
Trigger is solution for this problem:
IF OBJECT_ID('dbo.fktest2', 'U') IS NOT NULL
drop table fktest2
IF OBJECT_ID('dbo.fktest1', 'U') IS NOT NULL
drop table fktest1
IF EXISTS (SELECT name FROM sysobjects WHERE name = 'fkTest1Trigger' AND type = 'TR')
DROP TRIGGER dbo.fkTest1Trigger
go
create table fktest1 (id int primary key, anQId int identity)
go
create table fktest2 (id1 int, id2 int, anQId int identity,
FOREIGN KEY (id1) REFERENCES fktest1 (id)
ON DELETE CASCADE
ON UPDATE CASCADE/*,
FOREIGN KEY (id2) REFERENCES fktest1 (id) this causes compile error so we have to use triggers
ON DELETE CASCADE
ON UPDATE CASCADE*/
)
go
CREATE TRIGGER fkTest1Trigger
ON fkTest1
AFTER INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE
AS
if ##ROWCOUNT = 0
return
set nocount on
-- This code is replacement for foreign key cascade (auto update of field in destination table when its referenced primary key in source table changes.
-- Compiler complains only when you use multiple cascased. It throws this compile error:
-- Rrigger Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint on table may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION,
-- or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints.
IF ((UPDATE (id) and exists(select 1 from fktest1 A join deleted B on B.anqid = A.anqid where B.id <> A.id)))
begin
update fktest2 set id2 = i.id
from deleted d
join fktest2 on d.id = fktest2.id2
join inserted i on i.anqid = d.anqid
end
if exists (select 1 from deleted)
DELETE one FROM fktest2 one LEFT JOIN fktest1 two ON two.id = one.id2 where two.id is null -- drop all from dest table which are not in source table
GO
insert into fktest1 (id) values (1)
insert into fktest1 (id) values (2)
insert into fktest1 (id) values (3)
insert into fktest2 (id1, id2) values (1,1)
insert into fktest2 (id1, id2) values (2,2)
insert into fktest2 (id1, id2) values (1,3)
select * from fktest1
select * from fktest2
update fktest1 set id=11 where id=1
update fktest1 set id=22 where id=2
update fktest1 set id=33 where id=3
delete from fktest1 where id > 22
select * from fktest1
select * from fktest2
This is an error of type database trigger policies. A trigger is code and can add some intelligences or conditions to a Cascade relation like Cascade Deletion. You may need to specialize the related tables options around this like Turning off CascadeOnDelete:
protected override void OnModelCreating( DbModelBuilder modelBuilder )
{
modelBuilder.Entity<TableName>().HasMany(i => i.Member).WithRequired().WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
}
Or Turn off this feature completely:
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<OneToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
Some databases, most notably SQL Server, have limitations on the cascade behaviors that form cycles.
There are two ways to handle this situation:
1.Change one or more of the relationships to not cascade delete.
2.Configure the database without one or more of these cascade deletes, then ensure all dependent entities are loaded so that EF Core can perform the cascading behavior.
please refer to this link:
Database cascade limitations
Mass database update to offset PKs: make a copy of the database instead.
Special use case: company A uses a database with the same schema as company B. Because they have merged, they want to use a single database. Hence, many tables from company B's database must have their primary keys offset to avoid collision with company A's records.
One solution could have been to define foreign keys as ON UPDATE CASCADE, and offset the primary keys having the foreign keys follow. But there are many hurdles if you do that (Msg 1785, Msg 8102, ...).
So a better idea that occurs to me is simply to make a copy of the database, DROP and re CREATE the tables that must have their PKs|FKs offset, and copy the data (and while doing so, offset the primary keys and the foreign keys).
Avoiding all the hassle.
My solution to this problem encountered using ASP.NET Core 2.0 and EF Core 2.0 was to perform the following in order:
Run update-database command in Package Management Console (PMC) to create the database (this results in the "Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint ... may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths." error)
Run script-migration -Idempotent command in PMC to create a script that can be run regardless of the existing tables/constraints
Take the resulting script and find ON DELETE CASCADE and replace with ON DELETE NO ACTION
Execute the modified SQL against the database
Now, your migrations should be up-to-date and the cascading deletes should not occur.
Too bad I was not able to find any way to do this in Entity Framework Core 2.0.
Good luck!
I have a data table with a primary key called OptDefID. When a record in this table is deleted I need to go and delete all records from the Permissions table that have that OptDefID in the defID field (in Permissions). The tricky part for me is that the Permissions table does not have a primary key and holds lots of different kinds of permissions, and has a permissiontype field. I need to delete rows that have the OptDefID AND a permissiontype of OptDef.
Because I need to consider the permissiontype, I don't believe a Foreign Key Constraint is appropriate here (or is it?).
I've also considered creating a trigger, but am unsure how to get the OptDefID passed into the trigger.
I can do this via the application itself, but I feel like this should be a database level solution.
What's the best solution?
Say I want to delete from Permissions where defID is 20 and permissiontype is 'OptDef'. There may be another row in Permissions that has a defID of 20, but has a permissiontype of 'Member'. That show should not be deleted because it pertains to Members and not Opt data.
Storing table names in fields prevents foreign keys from working properly, as you have discovered.
I recommend you fix the root problem and separate these two foreign keys, so each of them can be individually enforced. For example:
CREATE TABLE Permissions (
...
OptDefId int,
MemberId int,
FOREIGN KEY (OptDefId) REFERENCES OptDef ON DELETE CASCADE,
FOREIGN KEY (MemberId) REFERENCES Members ON DELETE CASCADE,
CHECK (
(OptDefId IS NOT NULL AND MemberId IS NULL)
OR (OptDefId IS NULL AND MemberId IS NOT NULL)
)
)
The CHECK makes sure only one of the FKs is non-NULL and only non-NULL FKs are enforced.
Alternatively, you could avoid changing your current design and enforce this "special" FK through a trigger, but declarative constraints should be preferred to triggers when possible - declarative constraints tend to leave less room for error and be more "self-documenting".
In case the OptDefId column is only filled when the record in question references the Permissions table, a foreign key should be appropriate. I.e. you have another column MemberId, which in turn could be a foreign key on a Members table.
It is only when you have a single column - let's call it ObjectId - which takes on other meanings as the contents of the type column change, that you cannot use foreign keys.
In that case, a trigger would probably be the best approach, as you already guessed. I only know about triggers in Oracle PL/SQL, where they are passed in as separate, complete rows representing the old and new state. I guess it will be analogous in MS-SQL-Server.
In addition to using join with SELECT statements, you can also join multiple tables in DELETE & UPDATE statements as well.
As I understand the issue, you should be able to join the Permissions table to the table with the OptDefID column & add a WHERE clause similar to the this:
DELETE MyTable
...
WHERE [Permissions].permissiontype = 'OptDef'
Also, these links may be of interest too:
SQL DELETE with JOIN another table for WHERE condition (for MySQL, but still relevant)
Using A SQL JOIN In A SQL DELETE Statement
Using A SQL JOIN In A SQL UPDATE Statement
i have two tables Table1 and Table2. Where table1 column primary key is referred to table2 column as foreign key.
Now i have to display a error message of constraint violation when ever i delete records from table2 which is having foreign key column of table1.
If I get it right your column A (say) in table 1 references column B (say) in table 2.
What you can do is set the ON DELETE to NO ACTION which will prevent deletion of records from table 2 if any children of it still exists in table 1.
You can can do this by:
ALTER TABLE TABLE1 ADD FOREIGN KEY (A) REFERENCES TABLE2 (B) ON DELETE NO ACTION;
You don't have a constraint violation if you delete records from the child table and not the parent. It is normal to delete child records. For instance if I have a user table and a photos tables that contains the userid from the users table, why would I want to stop that action and throw an error if I want to delete a photo? Deleting a child record doesn't also delete the parent.
If you really want to do that, then you must do it through a trigger (make sure to handle multiple record deletes) or if the FK is a required field, then simply don't grant permissions to delete to the table. Be aware that this may mean you can never delete any records even when you try to delete. A simple method may be to not have a delete function available in the application.
I suspect what you really need to a to get a better definition of what is needed in the requirements document. In over 30 years of dealing with hundreds of databases, I have never seen anyone need this functionality.
I have a table (TableB) that has a foreign key relationship with a parent table (TableA).
When I delete a record in Table A, I want to preserve referential integrity by deleting all records in TableB that reference the deleted record in TableA.
Normally I would ON DELETE CASCADE. However due to the table structure and the overprotective safeguards against multiple cascade paths in SQL Server, this is not possible for this specific relationship.
I also cannot use an INSTEAD OF trigger as TableA itself has a CASCADE foreign key relationship on it.
What I'm thinking of doing is changing the relationship between TableA and TableB to ON DELETE SET NULL, then creating an AFTER trigger to cleanup the NULL records in TableB.
Are there better ways of dealing with this scenario?
Can you change the other constraint that is preventing you from adding this one as ON DELETE CASCADE?
Can you add a DeleteMe column, then issue an UPDATE A SET DeleteMe = 1, then use an after trigger to delete Table B rows first, then the requested table A rows?
Can you split or merge tables (vertically, that is) in some way that separates their mutually exclusive dependencies?