The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







6















SQL Server allows me to create multiple foreign keys on a column, and each time using just different name I can create another key referencing to the same object. Basically all the keys are defining the same relationship. I want to know what's the use of having multiple foreign keys which are defined on the same column and reference to the same column in another table. What's the benefit of it that SQL Server allows us to do a thing like that?



enter image description here










share|improve this question





























    6















    SQL Server allows me to create multiple foreign keys on a column, and each time using just different name I can create another key referencing to the same object. Basically all the keys are defining the same relationship. I want to know what's the use of having multiple foreign keys which are defined on the same column and reference to the same column in another table. What's the benefit of it that SQL Server allows us to do a thing like that?



    enter image description here










    share|improve this question

























      6












      6








      6








      SQL Server allows me to create multiple foreign keys on a column, and each time using just different name I can create another key referencing to the same object. Basically all the keys are defining the same relationship. I want to know what's the use of having multiple foreign keys which are defined on the same column and reference to the same column in another table. What's the benefit of it that SQL Server allows us to do a thing like that?



      enter image description here










      share|improve this question














      SQL Server allows me to create multiple foreign keys on a column, and each time using just different name I can create another key referencing to the same object. Basically all the keys are defining the same relationship. I want to know what's the use of having multiple foreign keys which are defined on the same column and reference to the same column in another table. What's the benefit of it that SQL Server allows us to do a thing like that?



      enter image description here







      sql-server foreign-key






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 13 hours ago









      ElGrigElGrig

      71916




      71916






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8














          There is no use for having identical foreign key constraints., that is on same columns and referencing same table and columns.



          It's like having the same check 2 or more times.






          share|improve this answer

































            7














            There is no benefit to having redundant constraints that differ only by name. Similarly, there is no benefit to having redundant indexes that differ only by name. Both add overhead without value.



            The SQL Server database engine does not stop you from doing so.






            share|improve this answer































              4














              SQL Server allows you to do a lot of silly things.



              You can even create a foreign key on a column referencing itself - despite the fact that this can never be violated as every row will meet the constraint on itself.



              One edge case where the ability to create two foreign keys on the same relationship would be potentially useful is because the index used for validating foreign keys is determined at creation time. If a better (i.e. narrower) index comes along later then this would allow a new foreign key constraint to be created bound on the better index and then the original constraint dropped without having any gap with no active constraint.



              (As in example below)



              CREATE TABLE T1(
              T1_Id INT PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED NOT NULL,
              Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
              )

              INSERT INTO T1 VALUES (1, '');

              CREATE TABLE T2(
              T2_Id INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
              T1_Id INT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id),
              Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
              )


              ALTER TABLE T1 ADD CONSTRAINT
              UQ_T1 UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED(T1_Id)


              /*Execution Plan uses clustered index*/
              INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

              ALTER TABLE T2 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK2 FOREIGN KEY(T1_Id)
              REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id)

              ALTER TABLE T2 DROP CONSTRAINT FK

              /*Now Execution Plan now uses non clustered index*/
              INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

              DROP TABLE T2, T1;


              As an aside for the interim period whilst both constraints exist any inserts end up being validated against both indexes.






              share|improve this answer

































                3














                Same reason you can create 50 indexes on the same column, add a second log file, set max server memory to 20MB... most people won't do these things, but there can be legitimate reasons to do them occasionally, so there's no benefit in creating overhead in the engine to add checks against things that are merely ill-advised.






                share|improve this answer
























                  Your Answer








                  StackExchange.ready(function() {
                  var channelOptions = {
                  tags: "".split(" "),
                  id: "182"
                  };
                  initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                  StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                  // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                  if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                  StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                  createEditor();
                  });
                  }
                  else {
                  createEditor();
                  }
                  });

                  function createEditor() {
                  StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                  heartbeatType: 'answer',
                  autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                  convertImagesToLinks: false,
                  noModals: true,
                  showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                  reputationToPostImages: null,
                  bindNavPrevention: true,
                  postfix: "",
                  imageUploader: {
                  brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                  contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                  allowUrls: true
                  },
                  onDemand: true,
                  discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                  ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                  });


                  }
                  });














                  draft saved

                  draft discarded


















                  StackExchange.ready(
                  function () {
                  StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f234086%2fthe-use-of-multiple-foreign-keys-on-same-column-in-sql-server%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                  }
                  );

                  Post as a guest















                  Required, but never shown

























                  4 Answers
                  4






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes








                  4 Answers
                  4






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  active

                  oldest

                  votes






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  8














                  There is no use for having identical foreign key constraints., that is on same columns and referencing same table and columns.



                  It's like having the same check 2 or more times.






                  share|improve this answer






























                    8














                    There is no use for having identical foreign key constraints., that is on same columns and referencing same table and columns.



                    It's like having the same check 2 or more times.






                    share|improve this answer




























                      8












                      8








                      8







                      There is no use for having identical foreign key constraints., that is on same columns and referencing same table and columns.



                      It's like having the same check 2 or more times.






                      share|improve this answer















                      There is no use for having identical foreign key constraints., that is on same columns and referencing same table and columns.



                      It's like having the same check 2 or more times.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited 13 hours ago

























                      answered 13 hours ago









                      ypercubeᵀᴹypercubeᵀᴹ

                      78.1k11136219




                      78.1k11136219

























                          7














                          There is no benefit to having redundant constraints that differ only by name. Similarly, there is no benefit to having redundant indexes that differ only by name. Both add overhead without value.



                          The SQL Server database engine does not stop you from doing so.






                          share|improve this answer




























                            7














                            There is no benefit to having redundant constraints that differ only by name. Similarly, there is no benefit to having redundant indexes that differ only by name. Both add overhead without value.



                            The SQL Server database engine does not stop you from doing so.






                            share|improve this answer


























                              7












                              7








                              7







                              There is no benefit to having redundant constraints that differ only by name. Similarly, there is no benefit to having redundant indexes that differ only by name. Both add overhead without value.



                              The SQL Server database engine does not stop you from doing so.






                              share|improve this answer













                              There is no benefit to having redundant constraints that differ only by name. Similarly, there is no benefit to having redundant indexes that differ only by name. Both add overhead without value.



                              The SQL Server database engine does not stop you from doing so.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 13 hours ago









                              Dan GuzmanDan Guzman

                              14.1k21736




                              14.1k21736























                                  4














                                  SQL Server allows you to do a lot of silly things.



                                  You can even create a foreign key on a column referencing itself - despite the fact that this can never be violated as every row will meet the constraint on itself.



                                  One edge case where the ability to create two foreign keys on the same relationship would be potentially useful is because the index used for validating foreign keys is determined at creation time. If a better (i.e. narrower) index comes along later then this would allow a new foreign key constraint to be created bound on the better index and then the original constraint dropped without having any gap with no active constraint.



                                  (As in example below)



                                  CREATE TABLE T1(
                                  T1_Id INT PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED NOT NULL,
                                  Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
                                  )

                                  INSERT INTO T1 VALUES (1, '');

                                  CREATE TABLE T2(
                                  T2_Id INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
                                  T1_Id INT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id),
                                  Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
                                  )


                                  ALTER TABLE T1 ADD CONSTRAINT
                                  UQ_T1 UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED(T1_Id)


                                  /*Execution Plan uses clustered index*/
                                  INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

                                  ALTER TABLE T2 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK2 FOREIGN KEY(T1_Id)
                                  REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id)

                                  ALTER TABLE T2 DROP CONSTRAINT FK

                                  /*Now Execution Plan now uses non clustered index*/
                                  INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

                                  DROP TABLE T2, T1;


                                  As an aside for the interim period whilst both constraints exist any inserts end up being validated against both indexes.






                                  share|improve this answer






























                                    4














                                    SQL Server allows you to do a lot of silly things.



                                    You can even create a foreign key on a column referencing itself - despite the fact that this can never be violated as every row will meet the constraint on itself.



                                    One edge case where the ability to create two foreign keys on the same relationship would be potentially useful is because the index used for validating foreign keys is determined at creation time. If a better (i.e. narrower) index comes along later then this would allow a new foreign key constraint to be created bound on the better index and then the original constraint dropped without having any gap with no active constraint.



                                    (As in example below)



                                    CREATE TABLE T1(
                                    T1_Id INT PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED NOT NULL,
                                    Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
                                    )

                                    INSERT INTO T1 VALUES (1, '');

                                    CREATE TABLE T2(
                                    T2_Id INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
                                    T1_Id INT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id),
                                    Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
                                    )


                                    ALTER TABLE T1 ADD CONSTRAINT
                                    UQ_T1 UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED(T1_Id)


                                    /*Execution Plan uses clustered index*/
                                    INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

                                    ALTER TABLE T2 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK2 FOREIGN KEY(T1_Id)
                                    REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id)

                                    ALTER TABLE T2 DROP CONSTRAINT FK

                                    /*Now Execution Plan now uses non clustered index*/
                                    INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

                                    DROP TABLE T2, T1;


                                    As an aside for the interim period whilst both constraints exist any inserts end up being validated against both indexes.






                                    share|improve this answer




























                                      4












                                      4








                                      4







                                      SQL Server allows you to do a lot of silly things.



                                      You can even create a foreign key on a column referencing itself - despite the fact that this can never be violated as every row will meet the constraint on itself.



                                      One edge case where the ability to create two foreign keys on the same relationship would be potentially useful is because the index used for validating foreign keys is determined at creation time. If a better (i.e. narrower) index comes along later then this would allow a new foreign key constraint to be created bound on the better index and then the original constraint dropped without having any gap with no active constraint.



                                      (As in example below)



                                      CREATE TABLE T1(
                                      T1_Id INT PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED NOT NULL,
                                      Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
                                      )

                                      INSERT INTO T1 VALUES (1, '');

                                      CREATE TABLE T2(
                                      T2_Id INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
                                      T1_Id INT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id),
                                      Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
                                      )


                                      ALTER TABLE T1 ADD CONSTRAINT
                                      UQ_T1 UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED(T1_Id)


                                      /*Execution Plan uses clustered index*/
                                      INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

                                      ALTER TABLE T2 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK2 FOREIGN KEY(T1_Id)
                                      REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id)

                                      ALTER TABLE T2 DROP CONSTRAINT FK

                                      /*Now Execution Plan now uses non clustered index*/
                                      INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

                                      DROP TABLE T2, T1;


                                      As an aside for the interim period whilst both constraints exist any inserts end up being validated against both indexes.






                                      share|improve this answer















                                      SQL Server allows you to do a lot of silly things.



                                      You can even create a foreign key on a column referencing itself - despite the fact that this can never be violated as every row will meet the constraint on itself.



                                      One edge case where the ability to create two foreign keys on the same relationship would be potentially useful is because the index used for validating foreign keys is determined at creation time. If a better (i.e. narrower) index comes along later then this would allow a new foreign key constraint to be created bound on the better index and then the original constraint dropped without having any gap with no active constraint.



                                      (As in example below)



                                      CREATE TABLE T1(
                                      T1_Id INT PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED NOT NULL,
                                      Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
                                      )

                                      INSERT INTO T1 VALUES (1, '');

                                      CREATE TABLE T2(
                                      T2_Id INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
                                      T1_Id INT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id),
                                      Filler CHAR(4000) NULL,
                                      )


                                      ALTER TABLE T1 ADD CONSTRAINT
                                      UQ_T1 UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED(T1_Id)


                                      /*Execution Plan uses clustered index*/
                                      INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

                                      ALTER TABLE T2 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK2 FOREIGN KEY(T1_Id)
                                      REFERENCES T1 (T1_Id)

                                      ALTER TABLE T2 DROP CONSTRAINT FK

                                      /*Now Execution Plan now uses non clustered index*/
                                      INSERT INTO T2 VALUES (1,1)

                                      DROP TABLE T2, T1;


                                      As an aside for the interim period whilst both constraints exist any inserts end up being validated against both indexes.







                                      share|improve this answer














                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer








                                      edited 8 hours ago

























                                      answered 8 hours ago









                                      Martin SmithMartin Smith

                                      64.1k10173258




                                      64.1k10173258























                                          3














                                          Same reason you can create 50 indexes on the same column, add a second log file, set max server memory to 20MB... most people won't do these things, but there can be legitimate reasons to do them occasionally, so there's no benefit in creating overhead in the engine to add checks against things that are merely ill-advised.






                                          share|improve this answer




























                                            3














                                            Same reason you can create 50 indexes on the same column, add a second log file, set max server memory to 20MB... most people won't do these things, but there can be legitimate reasons to do them occasionally, so there's no benefit in creating overhead in the engine to add checks against things that are merely ill-advised.






                                            share|improve this answer


























                                              3












                                              3








                                              3







                                              Same reason you can create 50 indexes on the same column, add a second log file, set max server memory to 20MB... most people won't do these things, but there can be legitimate reasons to do them occasionally, so there's no benefit in creating overhead in the engine to add checks against things that are merely ill-advised.






                                              share|improve this answer













                                              Same reason you can create 50 indexes on the same column, add a second log file, set max server memory to 20MB... most people won't do these things, but there can be legitimate reasons to do them occasionally, so there's no benefit in creating overhead in the engine to add checks against things that are merely ill-advised.







                                              share|improve this answer












                                              share|improve this answer



                                              share|improve this answer










                                              answered 11 hours ago









                                              Aaron BertrandAaron Bertrand

                                              154k18298493




                                              154k18298493






























                                                  draft saved

                                                  draft discarded




















































                                                  Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


                                                  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                                  But avoid



                                                  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                                  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                                  To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                                  draft saved


                                                  draft discarded














                                                  StackExchange.ready(
                                                  function () {
                                                  StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f234086%2fthe-use-of-multiple-foreign-keys-on-same-column-in-sql-server%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                                  }
                                                  );

                                                  Post as a guest















                                                  Required, but never shown





















































                                                  Required, but never shown














                                                  Required, but never shown












                                                  Required, but never shown







                                                  Required, but never shown

































                                                  Required, but never shown














                                                  Required, but never shown












                                                  Required, but never shown







                                                  Required, but never shown







                                                  Popular posts from this blog

                                                  Knooppunt Holsloot

                                                  Altaar (religie)

                                                  Gregoriusmis