As far as I know, foreign keys (FK) are used to aid the programmer to manipulate data in the correct way. Suppose a programmer is actually doing this in the right manner already, then do we really need the concept of foreign keys?
Are there any other uses for foreign keys? Am I missing something here?
Foreign keys help enforce referential integrity at the data level. They also improve performance because they're normally indexed by default.
Foreign keys can also help the programmer write less code using things like ON DELETE CASCADE. This means that if you have one table containing users and another containing orders or something, then deleting a user could automatically delete all orders that point to that user.
I can't imagine designing a database without foreign keys. Without them, eventually you are bound to make a mistake and corrupt the integrity of your data.
They are not required, strictly speaking, but the benefits are huge.
I'm fairly certain that FogBugz does not have foreign key constraints in the database. I would be interested to hear how the Fog Creek Software team structures their code to guarantee that they will never introduce an inconsistency.
A database schema without FK constraints is like driving without a seat belt.
One day, you'll regret it. Not spending that little extra time on the design fundamentals and data integrity is a sure fire way of assuring headaches later.
Would you accept code in your application that was that sloppy? That directly accessed the member objects and modified the data structures directly.
Why do you think this has been made hard and even unacceptable within modern languages?
Yes.
They keep you honest
They keep new developers honest
You can do ON DELETE CASCADE
They help you to generate nice diagrams that self explain the links between tables
Suppose a programmer is actually doing this in the right manner already
Making such a supposition seems to me to be an extremely bad idea; in general software is phenomenally buggy.
And that's the point, really. Developers can't get things right, so ensuring the database can't be filled with bad data is a Good Thing.
Although in an ideal world, natural joins would use relationships (i.e. FK constraints) rather than matching column names. This would make FKs even more useful.
Personally, I am in favor of foreign keys because it formalizes the relationship between the tables. I realize that your question presupposes that the programmer is not introducing data that would violate referential integrity, but I have seen way too many instances where data referential integrity is violated, despite best intentions!
Pre-foreign key constraints (aka declarative referential integrity or DRI) lots of time was spent implementing these relationships using triggers. The fact that we can formalize the relationship by a declarative constraint is very powerful.
#John - Other databases may automatically create indexes for foreign keys, but SQL Server does not. In SQL Server, foreign key relationships are only constraints. You must defined your index on foreign keys separately (which can be of benefit.)
Edit: I'd like to add that, IMO, the use of foreign keys in support of ON DELETE or ON UPDATE CASCADE is not necessarily a good thing. In practice, I have found that cascade on delete should be carefully considered based on the relationship of the data -- e.g. do you have a natural parent-child where this may be OK or is the related table a set of lookup values. Using cascaded updates implies you are allowing the primary key of one table to be modified. In that case, I have a general philosophical disagreement in that the primary key of a table should not change. Keys should be inherently constant.
Without a foreign key how do you tell that two records in different tables are related?
I think what you are referring to is referential integrity, where the child record is not allowed to be created without an existing parent record etc. These are often known as foreign key constraints - but are not to be confused with the existence of foreign keys in the first place.
I suppose you are talking about foreign key constraints enforced by the database. You probably already are using foreign keys, you just haven't told the database about it.
Suppose a programmer is actually doing
this in the right manner already, then
do we really need the concept of
foreign keys?
Theoretically, no. However, there have never been a piece of software without bugs.
Bugs in application code are typically not that dangerous - you identify the bug and fix it, and after that the application runs smoothly again. But if a bug allows currupt data to enter the database, then you are stuck with it! It's very hard to recover from corrupt data in the database.
Consider if a subtle bug in FogBugz allowed a corrupt foreign key to be written in the database. It might be easy to fix the bug and quickly push the fix to customers in a bugfix release. However, how should the corrupt data in dozens of databases be fixed? Correct code might now suddenly break because the assumptions about the integrity of foreign keys dont hold anymore.
In web applications you typically only have one program speaking to the database, so there is only one place where bugs can corrupt the data. In an enterprise application there might be several independent applications speaking to the same database (not to mention people working directly with the database shell). There is no way to be sure that all applications follow the same assumptions without bugs, always and forever.
If constraints are encoded in the database, then the worst that can happen with bugs is that the user is shown an ugly error message about some SQL constraint not satisfied. This is much prefereable to letting currupt data into your enterprise database, where it in turn will break all your applications or just lead to all kinds of wrong or misleading output.
Oh, and foreign key constraints also improves performance because they are indexed by default. I can't think of any reason not to use foreign key constraints.
Is there a benefit to not having foreign keys? Unless you are using a crappy database, FKs aren't that hard to set up. So why would you have a policy of avoiding them? It's one thing to have a naming convention that says a column references another, it's another to know the database is actually verifying that relationship for you.
FKs are very important and should always exist in your schema, unless you are eBay.
I think some single thing at some point must be responsible for ensuring valid relationships.
For example, Ruby on Rails does not use foreign keys, but it validates all the relationships itself. If you only ever access your database from that Ruby on Rails application, this is fine.
However, if you have other clients which are writing to the database, then without foreign keys they need to implement their own validation. You then have two copies of the validation code which are most likely different, which any programmer should be able to tell is a cardinal sin.
At that point, foreign keys really are neccessary, as they allow you to move the responsibility to a single point again.
Foreign keys allow someone who has not seen your database before to determine the relationship between tables.
Everything may be fine now, but think what will happen when your programmer leaves and someone else has to take over.
Foreign keys will allow them to understand the database structure without trawling through thousand of lines of code.
As far as I know, foreign keys are used to aid the programmer to manipulate data in the correct way.
FKs allow the DBA to protect data integrity from the fumbling of users when the programmer fails to do so, and sometimes to protect against the fumbling of programmers.
Suppose a programmer is actually doing this in the right manner already, then do we really need the concept of foreign keys?
Programmers are mortal and fallible. FKs are declarative which makes them harder to screw up.
Are there any other uses for foreign keys? Am I missing something here?
Although this is not why they were created, FKs provide strong reliable hinting to diagramming tools and to query builders. This is passed on to end users, who desperately need strong reliable hints.
They are not strictly necessary, in the way that seatbelts are not strictly necessary. But they can really save you from doing something stupid that messes up your database.
It's so much nicer to debug a FK constraint error than have to reconstruct a delete that broke your application.
They are important, because your application is not the only way data can be manipulated in the database. Your application may handle referential integrity as honestly as it wants, but all it takes is one bozo with the right privileges to come along and issue an insert, delete or update command at the database level, and all your application referential integrity enforcement is bypassed. Putting FK constraints in at the database level means that, barring this bozo choosing to disable the FK constraint before issuing their command, the FK constraint will cause a bad insert/update/delete statement to fail with a referential integrity violation.
I think about it in terms of cost/benefit... In MySQL, adding a constraint is a single additional line of DDL. It's just a handful of key words and a couple of seconds of thought. That's the only "cost" in my opinion...
Tools love foreign keys. Foreign keys prevent bad data (that is, orphaned rows) that may not affect business logic or functionality and therefor go unnoticed, and build up. It also prevents developers who are unfamiliar with the schema from implementing entire chunks of work without realizing they're missing a relationship. Perhaps everything is great within the scope of your current application, but if you missed something and someday something unexpected is added (think fancy reporting), you might be in a spot where you have to manually clean up bad data that's been accumulating since the inception of the schema without a database enforced check.
The little time it takes to codify what's already in your head when you're putting things together could save you or someone else a bunch of grief months or years down the road.
The question:
Are there any other uses for foreign
keys? Am I missing something here?
It is a bit loaded. Insert comments, indentation or variable naming in place of "foreign keys"... If you already understand the thing in question perfectly, it's "no use" to you.
Entropy reduction. Reduce the potential for chaotic scenarios to occur in the database.
We have a hard time as it is considering all the possiblilites so, in my opinion, entropy reduction is key to the maintenance of any system.
When we make an assumption for example: each order has a customer that assumption should be enforced by something. In databases that "something" is foreign keys.
I think this is worth the tradeoff in development speed. Sure, you can code quicker with them off and this is probably why some people don't use them. Personally I have killed a number of hours with NHibernate and some foreign key constraint that gets angry when I perform some operation. HOWEVER, I know what the problem is so it's less of a problem. I'm using normal tools and there are resources to help me work around this, possibly even people to help!
The alternative is allow a bug to creep into the system (and given enough time, it will) where a foreign key isn't set and your data becomes inconsistent. Then, you get an unusual bug report, investigate and "OH". The database is screwed. Now how long is that going to take to fix?
You can view foreign keys as a constraint that,
Help maintain data integrity
Show how data is related to each other (which can help in enforcing business logic and rules)
If used correctly, can help increase the efficiency with which the data is fetched from the tables.
We don't currently use foreign keys. And for the most part we don't regret it.
That said - we're likely to start using them a lot more in the near future for several reasons, both of them for similar reasons:
Diagramming. It's so much easier to produce a diagram of a database if there are foreign key relationships correctly used.
Tool support. It's a lot easier to build data models using Visual Studio 2008 that can be used for LINQ to SQL if there are proper foreign key relationships.
So I guess my point is that we've found that if we're doing a lot of manual SQL work (construct query, run query, blahblahblah) foreign keys aren't necessarily essential. Once you start getting into using tools, though, they become a lot more useful.
The best thing about foreign key constraints (and constraints in general, really) are that you can rely on them when writing your queries. A lot of queries can become a lot more complicated if you can't rely on the data model holding "true".
In code, we'll generally just get an exception thrown somewhere - but in SQL, we'll generally just get the "wrong" answers.
In theory, SQL Server could use constraints as part of a query plan - but except for check constraints for partitioning, I can't say that I've ever actually witnessed that.
Foreign keys had never been explicit (FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES table(column)) declared in projects (business applications and social networking websites) which I worked on.
But there always was a kind of convention of naming columns which were foreign keys.
It's like with database normalization -- you have to know what are you doing and what are consequence of that (mainly performance).
I am aware of advantages of foreign keys (data integrity, index for foreign key column, tools aware of database schema), but also I am afraid of using foreign keys as general rule.
Also various database engines could serve foreign keys in a different way, which could lead to subtle bugs during migration.
Removing all orders and invoices of deleted client with ON DELETE CASCADE is the perfect example of nice looking, but wrong designed, database schema.
Yes. The ON DELETE [RESTRICT|CASCADE] keeps developers from stranding data, keeping the data clean. I recently joined a team of Rails developers who did not focus on database constraints such as foreign keys.
Luckily, I found these: http://www.redhillonrails.org/foreign_key_associations.html -- RedHill on Ruby on Rails plug-ins generate foreign keys using the convention over configuration style. A migration with product_id will create a foreign key to the id in the products table.
Check out the other great plug-ins at RedHill, including migrations wrapped in transactions.
If you plan on generating your data access code, ie, Entity Framework or any other ORM you entirely lose the ability to generate a hierarchical model without Foreign Keys
Related
I'm working on a database-first ASP.NET MVC application. Looking at the database the foreign keys are very inconsistent, basically they are only there if it was specified in the SQL scripts that created the tables. In most cases they are not there.
However, looking in the edmx model, I can see that it is aware of the foreign keys i.e. it has correctly identified the navigation properties.
My question is, does the missing foreign keys in the actual database have an effect on the sql genereted by Entity Framework? By effect I mean negative impact on performance.
I can't really figure out if it matters or not.
Just to clarify, in the database I'm expanding tables and looking for the red key which indicates a foreign key. I'm also looking in the subfolder: "Keys".
Negative impact on performance.
I can think of two effects of the presence of foreign keys.
A tiny negative impact on inserts and updates, because the keys have to be checked. However, compared to everything else taking place in one complete database roundtrip this effect is totally negligible. Absolutely no reason to refrain from using them. It will never ever outweigh the benefits of data integrity.
A tremendous performance gain when foreign keys are set up with cascaded deletes and updates.
In short, there is no reason for deliberately omitting foreign keys.
Of course, legacy can't always be undone overnight. If there is any room for changes in the database schema, I'd go for it. If not, you may consider manually adding common associations in the edmx model. These associations will not be erased by updating the model from the database.
Yes, you need those foreign keys.
I do not know Entity Framework, but I know some SQL Server.
You can get much better execution plans if you have Foreign Keys.
Kendra Little has a good video about Foreign keys here.
You also need to make sure that they are active and trusted.
Brent Ozar writes about that here.
What are some good rules of thumbs and pitfalls that database designers should watch out for when setting up foreign key constraints in a database?
Also, when inheriting an existing database with few foreign keys, how difficult is it to just add foreign keys onto an existing schema?
Rule of thumb, never set up a relational database without the foreign key relationships if you care about the integrity of your data. Yes this can slow dow data inserts/updates and deletes some. This is a good thing as it is taking actions to protect your data. Without data integrity all of the data in your database is untrustworthy and therefore useless.
It is generally not hard to set up foreign keys later (in SQL Server you run an Alter table statment to add the key), the difficulty in doing so is the reason why it is unprofessional to not add them in the design phase. If you didn't have an FK, it is highly likey that you have some data that doesn't meet the rules of the PK/FK relationship and that needs to be cleaned up first.
Don't allow nulls in foreign keys
Avoid using DEFERRABLE constraints even if your DBMS supports them.
Consider adding the ON UPDATE CASCADE option if you think you must but also consider the alternatives (insert then update rather than directly update the candidate key).
Be aware that adding a constraint is often harder than removing it. Adding constraints is probably more likely to break existing code (some DML may not work) and therefore potentially requires more development and testing time to fix. For that reason it's better to add constraints earlier rather than later in every development cycle - you can always remove them later.
When you inherit a schema, you will
have to add constraints to it. (Not just foreign key constraints.)
Someone will have to fix bad data
before you can add constraints.
It takes people a long time to fix
bad data. (They have "real" work to
do.)
The first database design job I did as a professional was to replace an existing database for a Fortune 500. It was small, even for the 1980s. A couple of administrative people were assigned to fix data errors uncovered during analysis and design. They could fix a couple hundred errors a day. They didn't want all the errors at once, just a couple hundred a day.
So I fed them a couple hundred errors a day. Every day for six months.
I was wondering how useful foreign keys really are in a database. Essentially, if the developers know what keys the different tables depend on, they can write the queries just as though there was a foreign key, right?
Also, I do see how to foreign-key constraints help prevent all sorts of bugs with data integrity, but say for example, the programmers do a good job of preserving data integrity, how necessary are foreign keys really?
If you don't care about referential integrity then you are right. But.... you should care about referential integrity.
The problem is that people make mistakes. Computers do not.
Regarding your comment:
but say for example, the programmers do a good job of
preserving data integrity
Someone will eventually make a mistake. No one is perfect. Also if you bring someone new in you aren't always sure of their ability to write "perfect" code.
In addition to that you lose the ability to do cascading deletes and a number of other features that having defined foreign keys allow.
I think that assuming that programmers will always preserve data integrity is a risky assumption.
There's no reason why you wouldn't create foreign keys, and being able to guarantee integrity instead of just hoping for integrity is reason enough.
Not using referential integrity in a database is like not using seatbelts in cars. It will provide you with measurable improvements in taking you from A->B, but it will make "real" difference only in the most extreme cases. Why take the "risk" unless you really have to?
The underlaying reason people ask this question is always performance.
Foreign keys give the optimizer much more information to work with, and it will potentially produce better execution plans. It's not like a specific query will be % percent faster with enabled constraints, it's more like you effectively eliminate entire classes of problems due to bad execution plans. You also enable the optimizer to rewrite queries in ways that just isn't possible without the constraints (join elimination for example).
Starting right here, I would like to start a myth that referential integrity always increases performance in databases. I'm fairly confident that if 100 people designed their databases with full integrity checking, less than 5 people will actually have to consider spend a whopping 1 second to disable them for performance reasons. Out of those 5 people, there will be close to 0 people who find that they need to disable 100% of the constraints.
Foreign keys are invaluable as a means of ensuring integrity, and even if you trust your developers to never (!) make errors the cost of having them is usually well worth it.
Foreign keys also serve as documentation, in that you can see what relates to what. This information is typically also used by tools, such as for generating reports, creating data sets from table definitions, object-relational mappers, etc. Even if you do not use any of these today, having FKs will make it easier to tread that path later.
Foreign keys also allow you to define cascade rules, which e.g. can be used to to delete associated records in related tables when a row in one table is deleted.
Only if you have ridiculously high loads should you consider bypassing FKs.
Edit: updated answer to include points from other answers (reports, cascades).
You said
but say for example, the programmers
do a good job of preserving data
integrity
The expression you were looking for is, "I'm 100% certain that every programmer and every database administrator will manually preserve data integrity perfectly no matter what application touches this database, no matter how complex the database becomes, from now until the time it's decommissioned."
You don't have to use them but why wouldn't you?
They are there to help. From making life easier with cascade updates and cascade deletes, to guaranteeing that constraints aren't violated.
Maybe the application honors the constraints, but isn't it useful to have them clearly specified? You could document them, or you could put them in the database where most programmers expect to find constraints they are supposed to conform to (a better idea I think!).
Finally, if you ever need to import data into this database which doesn't go via the front-end, you may accidently import data which violates the constraints and breaks the application.
I'd definetly not recommend skipping the relationships in a database
Foreign Keys make life so much easier when using report builders and data analysis tools. Just select one table, check the include related tables box and BAM! you've got you're report built. Ok Ok, it's not that easy, but they certianly save time in that respect.
Use constraints rather than application logic to enforce integrity because it is generally easier, cheaper and more reliable to maintain constraints in one place (the database) rather than in every application.
I understand from one of your comments that your motivation for asking the question is that you think leaving out the keys may make it easier to evolve the database design during development. In my experience you are wrong about that. I find that it's actually better to be more restrictive with constraints in the early stages of development. If in doubt, create the constraint because it's much easier to remove constraints later than it is to create them. Removing a constraint will tend to break fewer things than adding one and generally requires less testing and fewer code changes to achieve.
Another point to make is that when you scrap your current user interface and use a new one with shiny new tools, you won't lose your referential integrity because the new devs have no idea what should be related to what. Databases are generally in use much much longer than user interfaces. They are also often used by more than one application interface and then you have the problem of different interfaces trying to enforce different integrity rules.
I will also point out that I have had occasion to look at the data in, quite literally, hundreds of databases and have not found one yet that has good data if they didn't set up FKs. This bad data complicates reporting, it complicates imports and exports to and from clients and other third party vendors who need or provide the data. And if the bad data is in a financial area, it could also have legal and accounting implications. I can even remember one time the company had thousands of bad inventory records where the actual product that was stored was no longer identifiable (nor the location) which also created issues with defining the value of the inventory necessary for financial reporting. This is not only bad from a perspective of not knowing what parts you have on hand, but it enables people to steal parts without being caught simply by deleting the part number from the part table (this particular place didn't have auditing in place either.).
Folks have offered up some good answers above. However, one important point I didn't see mentioned is that foreign keys make your entity relationship diagrams (ERDs) easier to generate and much more meaningful. Without FKs, you either need to depict the FK relationships on your ERD manually (painful for you) or not at all (painful for others, and perhaps even for yourself once your memory of the implied FK relationships starts to fade over time). With FKs explicitly defined, most tools that automatically generate ERDs from database object definitions will automatically detect and depict the FK relationships.
Perhaps the question should be "How bad are orphan records?". In many cases orphaned records aren't really going to hurt anything. Yes these records may persist until the end of time but how bad is this really? Cascading updates or deletes are rarely useful features. Referential integrity sounds nice but I think is not as important as we have been lead to believe. The biggest benefit to FK's is the documentation they provide. In my experience FK's for referential integrity are way more trouble than they are worth.
I am having the same question today, and found many articles talking about why you don't have to use foreign keys online. But so far, 10 of 11 answers here say you should have FKs.
I am not a db expert and just want to share some points I found online about when and why you don't have FKs:
Some points from 9 reasons why there are no foreign keys constraints:
Performance
Legacy data
Full table reload
Higher level framework
Cross database relations
Database platform agnostic
Open for change
Lazy architect
Keep model a secret
Some points from At GitHub we do not use foreign keys, ever, anywhere.
FKs are in your way to shard your database.
FKs are a performance impact.
FKs don't work well with online schema migrations.
Note: I don't have any opinions. Just sharing some online articles to provide a different answer to most of the current ones.
It is causing so much trouble in terms of development just by letting database enforcing foreign key. Especially during unit test I can’t drop table due to foreign key constrains, I need to create table in such an order that foreign key constrain warning won’t get triggered. In reality I don’t see too much point of letting database enforcing the foreign key constrains. If the application has been properly designed there should not be any manual database manipulation other than select queries. I just want to make sure that I am not digging myself into a hole by not having foreign key constrains in database and leaving it solely to the application’s responsibility. Am I missing anything?
P.S. my real unit tests (not those that use mocking) will drop existing tables if the structure of underlying domain object has been modified.
In my experience, if you don't enforce foreign keys in a database, then eventually (assuming the database is relatively large and heavily used) you will end up with orphaned records. This can happen in many ways, but it always seems to happen.
If you index properly, there should not be any performance advantages to foreign keys.
So the question is, does the potential damage/hassle/support cost/financial cost of having orphaned records in your database outweigh the development and testing hassle?
In my experience, for business applications I always use foreign keys. It should just be a one-time setup cost to get your build scripts working correctly, and the data stability will more than pay for that over the life of an application.
The point of enforcing the rules in the database is that it's declarative - e.g. you do not have to write ton of code to handle it.
As far as your unit tests, just delete tables in the proper order. You just have to write a function to do it right once.
Your issues in development should not drive the DB design. Constantly rebuilding a DB is a developer use case, not a customer use case.
Also, the DB constraints help beyond your application. You never know what your customer might try to do. Don't over do it, but you need a few.
It might seem like you can rely on your applications to follow implied rules, but unless you enforce them eventually someone will make a mistake.
Or maybe 5 years from now someone will do a tidy-up of old records "which are no longer needed" and not realise that there is data in other tables still referencing them. Then a few days/weeks later you or your successor gets the fun job of trying to repair the mess that the database has got in to. :-)
Here's a nice discussion on that in a previous question on SO: What's wrong with foreign keys?. [Edit]: The argument is to make non-enforced foreign keys to get some of the pros if any of the cons apply.
If the application has been properly
designed there should not be any
manual database manipulation other
than select queries
What? What kind of koolaid are you drinking? Most databases applications exist to manipulate the data in the database not just to see it. Generally the whole purpose of the application is to add the new orders or create the new customer records or document the customer service calls etc.
Foreign keys are for data integrity. Data integrity is critical to being able to use the data with any reliability. Databases without data integrity are useless and can cause companies to lose money. This trumps your self-centered view that FKs aren't needed because they make development more complicated for you. The data is far more important than your convenience in running tests (which can be written to account for the FKs).
How compatible is ORM and existing databases that have a lot of constraints (particularly unique key constraints/unique indexes beyond primary keys) enforced within the database itself?
(Often these are preexisting databases, shared by numerous legacy applications. But good database modeling practice is to define as many constraints as possible in the database, as a double-check on the applications. Also note that the database engine I am working with does not support deferred constraint checking.)
The reason I am asking is that the ORMs I have looked into, NHibernate and Linq to SQL, don't seem to hold up very well in the presence of database unique constraints. For example, deleting a row and re-inserting one with the same business key results in a foreign key exception. (There are subtle, harder to avoid examples as well.) The ORMs observe primary key and foreign key constraints, but tend to be oblivious to unique constraints.
I understand that there are workarounds, such as the NHibernate flush method. However, I feel this is an extremely leaky abstraction and makes it hard to design the application with regards to a separation of concerns. Ideally, all of the objects can be manipulated in memory by subroutines and then the main routine can take responsibility for the call to actually sync the database. This isolates the update and allowes for custom logic to inspect all of the updates before they are actually submitted to the database.
Executing the commands in the correct order is non-trivial. See my question here. Nonetheless, I was expecting better support for the common cases among the popular ORMs. This seems so important for introducing an ORM into an existing environment.
What have been your experiences with using ORM technologies is light of these issues?
This is of course IMHO...
ORM in general treats databases as merely a storage medium for data and is geared towards maintaining the constraints/business logic in the "O" side and not the "R" side. I haven't seen any ORM products that make use of some of the more "hardcore" relational database concepts like alternate keys, composite unique indexes, and exclusive subtypes. In a sense, ORM makes the database a second class citizen.
Call me old fashioned, but ORM seems to be good for reading data but for writing data back to a non-trivial relational design, I've always found it falls short. I prefer to do all my updates through SQL and/or stored procedures.
Good ORMs, and NHibernate is one, will enforce referential integrity and proper order execution if the database is mapped correctly. As far as I know, none of them support check or unique constraints. Check constraints are business rules that should be enforced in the business objects. I usually only enforce critical business rules (i.e. the business would lose money and/or I would lose my job if these rules were violated) in the database using check constraints and/or triggers.
Unique constraints usually represent an alternate key. With ORMs, it's common practice to use a surrogate key (identity) as the primary key and enforce a unique constraint on the natural key. It would be challenging for an ORM to implement unique constraint checking because it would require a select and lock before every insert or update. In general, the best practice is to always perform operations in a transaction that can be rolled back if it fails and provide a meaningful error message to the user.
For example, deleting a row and re-inserting one with the same business key results in a foreign key exception.
Were you trying to do this in the scope of a single ISession? I could see that being problematic.