Foreign key constraint may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths?
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 sql-server constraints
add a comment |
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 sql-server constraints
One of the solution is here
– IsmailS
May 7 '12 at 16:40
add a comment |
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 sql-server constraints
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 sql-server constraints
sql sql-server constraints
edited Jul 9 '12 at 20:41
Ricardo Altamirano
7,853166199
7,853166199
asked May 12 '09 at 7:47
Christian Nielsen
One of the solution is here
– IsmailS
May 7 '12 at 16:40
add a comment |
One of the solution is here
– IsmailS
May 7 '12 at 16:40
One of the solution is here
– IsmailS
May 7 '12 at 16:40
One of the solution is here
– IsmailS
May 7 '12 at 16:40
add a comment |
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
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.
I came to the same conclution in the end, and ended up solving it using triggers. Nice to know there is this difference between DBMS and that it is in fact a design decision I am stuck on. Thanks a lot :)
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 10:37
1
one thing that i still cannot understand is that, if this "problem" can be solved by using a trigger, then how come that a trigger will not "cause cycles or multiple cascade paths ..." ?
– armen
Jul 24 '14 at 10:17
4
@armen: because your trigger will explicitly supply the logic that the system couldn't implicitly figure out on it's own eg if there are multiple paths for a delete referential action then your trigger code will define which tables are deleted and in which order.
– onedaywhen
Aug 5 '14 at 15:22
5
And also the trigger executes after the first operation completes so there is no race going on.
– Bon
Aug 4 '15 at 16:50
2
@dumbledad: I mean, only use triggers when constraints (maybe on combination) can't get the job done. Constraints are declarative and their implementations are the responsibility of the system. Triggers are procedural code and you must code (and debug) the implementation and endure their disadvantages (worse performance etc).
– onedaywhen
Feb 22 '16 at 15:14
|
show 1 more comment
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).
1
Your comment helped me a lot to understand the problem that I am facing. Thank you! I would prefer turning off the cascade delete for one of the path, then handle delete of other records some other ways(stored procedures; triggers; by code etc). But I keep your solution(grouping in one path) in mind for possible different applications of same problem...
– freewill
Feb 14 '14 at 21:39
1
One up for use of the word crux (and also for explaining)
– masterwok
Dec 11 '14 at 4:35
Is this better than writing triggers? It seems odd to add an additional table just to get the cascade working.
– dumbledad
Feb 2 '16 at 10:04
Very good explanation. Thanks.
– Kamran
Dec 31 '18 at 17:13
add a comment |
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.
"if you're using RI constraints you can't actually build a cycle in the data!" -- good point!
– onedaywhen
Mar 23 '16 at 17:11
add a comment |
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/
Must read article! Thanks
– Shyamal Parikh
Dec 10 '15 at 7:47
add a comment |
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...
1
They are fairly long, so I dont think I can post them here, but I would much appreciate your help - dont know if there is some way i can send them to you? Ill try and describe it: The only constraints that exist are from 3 tables that all have fields that reference codes by a simple INT Id key. The problem seems to be that Employee has several fields that reference the code table and that i want them all to cascade to SET NULL. All I need is that when codes are deleted, the references to them should be set to null everywhere.
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 8:13
post them anyway... I don't think anyone here will mind, and the code window will format them properly in a scrolling block :)
– Eoin Campbell
May 12 '09 at 8:30
add a comment |
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);
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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>();
add a comment |
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/constraintsTake the resulting script and find
ON DELETE CASCADE
and replace withON 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!
You can change your migration file to do so (without changing sql script), i.e. in your migration file you can set onDelete action to Restrict from Cascade
– Rushi Soni
Mar 17 '18 at 11:46
It's better to specify this using fluent annotations so that you don't have to remember to do this if you end up deleting and recreating your migrations folder.
– Allen Wang
May 1 '18 at 15:08
In my experience, the fluent annotations can be used and should be used (I use them) but they are often be quite buggy. Simply specifying them in the code doesn't always work produce the expected result.
– user1477388
May 2 '18 at 10:21
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ May 29 '15 at 7:39
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
I came to the same conclution in the end, and ended up solving it using triggers. Nice to know there is this difference between DBMS and that it is in fact a design decision I am stuck on. Thanks a lot :)
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 10:37
1
one thing that i still cannot understand is that, if this "problem" can be solved by using a trigger, then how come that a trigger will not "cause cycles or multiple cascade paths ..." ?
– armen
Jul 24 '14 at 10:17
4
@armen: because your trigger will explicitly supply the logic that the system couldn't implicitly figure out on it's own eg if there are multiple paths for a delete referential action then your trigger code will define which tables are deleted and in which order.
– onedaywhen
Aug 5 '14 at 15:22
5
And also the trigger executes after the first operation completes so there is no race going on.
– Bon
Aug 4 '15 at 16:50
2
@dumbledad: I mean, only use triggers when constraints (maybe on combination) can't get the job done. Constraints are declarative and their implementations are the responsibility of the system. Triggers are procedural code and you must code (and debug) the implementation and endure their disadvantages (worse performance etc).
– onedaywhen
Feb 22 '16 at 15:14
|
show 1 more comment
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.
I came to the same conclution in the end, and ended up solving it using triggers. Nice to know there is this difference between DBMS and that it is in fact a design decision I am stuck on. Thanks a lot :)
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 10:37
1
one thing that i still cannot understand is that, if this "problem" can be solved by using a trigger, then how come that a trigger will not "cause cycles or multiple cascade paths ..." ?
– armen
Jul 24 '14 at 10:17
4
@armen: because your trigger will explicitly supply the logic that the system couldn't implicitly figure out on it's own eg if there are multiple paths for a delete referential action then your trigger code will define which tables are deleted and in which order.
– onedaywhen
Aug 5 '14 at 15:22
5
And also the trigger executes after the first operation completes so there is no race going on.
– Bon
Aug 4 '15 at 16:50
2
@dumbledad: I mean, only use triggers when constraints (maybe on combination) can't get the job done. Constraints are declarative and their implementations are the responsibility of the system. Triggers are procedural code and you must code (and debug) the implementation and endure their disadvantages (worse performance etc).
– onedaywhen
Feb 22 '16 at 15:14
|
show 1 more comment
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.
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.
edited Feb 1 at 18:03
Sander
303513
303513
answered May 12 '09 at 10:03
onedaywhenonedaywhen
43.7k1079121
43.7k1079121
I came to the same conclution in the end, and ended up solving it using triggers. Nice to know there is this difference between DBMS and that it is in fact a design decision I am stuck on. Thanks a lot :)
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 10:37
1
one thing that i still cannot understand is that, if this "problem" can be solved by using a trigger, then how come that a trigger will not "cause cycles or multiple cascade paths ..." ?
– armen
Jul 24 '14 at 10:17
4
@armen: because your trigger will explicitly supply the logic that the system couldn't implicitly figure out on it's own eg if there are multiple paths for a delete referential action then your trigger code will define which tables are deleted and in which order.
– onedaywhen
Aug 5 '14 at 15:22
5
And also the trigger executes after the first operation completes so there is no race going on.
– Bon
Aug 4 '15 at 16:50
2
@dumbledad: I mean, only use triggers when constraints (maybe on combination) can't get the job done. Constraints are declarative and their implementations are the responsibility of the system. Triggers are procedural code and you must code (and debug) the implementation and endure their disadvantages (worse performance etc).
– onedaywhen
Feb 22 '16 at 15:14
|
show 1 more comment
I came to the same conclution in the end, and ended up solving it using triggers. Nice to know there is this difference between DBMS and that it is in fact a design decision I am stuck on. Thanks a lot :)
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 10:37
1
one thing that i still cannot understand is that, if this "problem" can be solved by using a trigger, then how come that a trigger will not "cause cycles or multiple cascade paths ..." ?
– armen
Jul 24 '14 at 10:17
4
@armen: because your trigger will explicitly supply the logic that the system couldn't implicitly figure out on it's own eg if there are multiple paths for a delete referential action then your trigger code will define which tables are deleted and in which order.
– onedaywhen
Aug 5 '14 at 15:22
5
And also the trigger executes after the first operation completes so there is no race going on.
– Bon
Aug 4 '15 at 16:50
2
@dumbledad: I mean, only use triggers when constraints (maybe on combination) can't get the job done. Constraints are declarative and their implementations are the responsibility of the system. Triggers are procedural code and you must code (and debug) the implementation and endure their disadvantages (worse performance etc).
– onedaywhen
Feb 22 '16 at 15:14
I came to the same conclution in the end, and ended up solving it using triggers. Nice to know there is this difference between DBMS and that it is in fact a design decision I am stuck on. Thanks a lot :)
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 10:37
I came to the same conclution in the end, and ended up solving it using triggers. Nice to know there is this difference between DBMS and that it is in fact a design decision I am stuck on. Thanks a lot :)
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 10:37
1
1
one thing that i still cannot understand is that, if this "problem" can be solved by using a trigger, then how come that a trigger will not "cause cycles or multiple cascade paths ..." ?
– armen
Jul 24 '14 at 10:17
one thing that i still cannot understand is that, if this "problem" can be solved by using a trigger, then how come that a trigger will not "cause cycles or multiple cascade paths ..." ?
– armen
Jul 24 '14 at 10:17
4
4
@armen: because your trigger will explicitly supply the logic that the system couldn't implicitly figure out on it's own eg if there are multiple paths for a delete referential action then your trigger code will define which tables are deleted and in which order.
– onedaywhen
Aug 5 '14 at 15:22
@armen: because your trigger will explicitly supply the logic that the system couldn't implicitly figure out on it's own eg if there are multiple paths for a delete referential action then your trigger code will define which tables are deleted and in which order.
– onedaywhen
Aug 5 '14 at 15:22
5
5
And also the trigger executes after the first operation completes so there is no race going on.
– Bon
Aug 4 '15 at 16:50
And also the trigger executes after the first operation completes so there is no race going on.
– Bon
Aug 4 '15 at 16:50
2
2
@dumbledad: I mean, only use triggers when constraints (maybe on combination) can't get the job done. Constraints are declarative and their implementations are the responsibility of the system. Triggers are procedural code and you must code (and debug) the implementation and endure their disadvantages (worse performance etc).
– onedaywhen
Feb 22 '16 at 15:14
@dumbledad: I mean, only use triggers when constraints (maybe on combination) can't get the job done. Constraints are declarative and their implementations are the responsibility of the system. Triggers are procedural code and you must code (and debug) the implementation and endure their disadvantages (worse performance etc).
– onedaywhen
Feb 22 '16 at 15:14
|
show 1 more comment
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).
1
Your comment helped me a lot to understand the problem that I am facing. Thank you! I would prefer turning off the cascade delete for one of the path, then handle delete of other records some other ways(stored procedures; triggers; by code etc). But I keep your solution(grouping in one path) in mind for possible different applications of same problem...
– freewill
Feb 14 '14 at 21:39
1
One up for use of the word crux (and also for explaining)
– masterwok
Dec 11 '14 at 4:35
Is this better than writing triggers? It seems odd to add an additional table just to get the cascade working.
– dumbledad
Feb 2 '16 at 10:04
Very good explanation. Thanks.
– Kamran
Dec 31 '18 at 17:13
add a comment |
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).
1
Your comment helped me a lot to understand the problem that I am facing. Thank you! I would prefer turning off the cascade delete for one of the path, then handle delete of other records some other ways(stored procedures; triggers; by code etc). But I keep your solution(grouping in one path) in mind for possible different applications of same problem...
– freewill
Feb 14 '14 at 21:39
1
One up for use of the word crux (and also for explaining)
– masterwok
Dec 11 '14 at 4:35
Is this better than writing triggers? It seems odd to add an additional table just to get the cascade working.
– dumbledad
Feb 2 '16 at 10:04
Very good explanation. Thanks.
– Kamran
Dec 31 '18 at 17:13
add a comment |
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).
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).
edited Mar 27 '12 at 12:23
Chuck Norris
12.5k1173115
12.5k1173115
answered Aug 23 '10 at 13:55
hans rieseboshans riesebos
82962
82962
1
Your comment helped me a lot to understand the problem that I am facing. Thank you! I would prefer turning off the cascade delete for one of the path, then handle delete of other records some other ways(stored procedures; triggers; by code etc). But I keep your solution(grouping in one path) in mind for possible different applications of same problem...
– freewill
Feb 14 '14 at 21:39
1
One up for use of the word crux (and also for explaining)
– masterwok
Dec 11 '14 at 4:35
Is this better than writing triggers? It seems odd to add an additional table just to get the cascade working.
– dumbledad
Feb 2 '16 at 10:04
Very good explanation. Thanks.
– Kamran
Dec 31 '18 at 17:13
add a comment |
1
Your comment helped me a lot to understand the problem that I am facing. Thank you! I would prefer turning off the cascade delete for one of the path, then handle delete of other records some other ways(stored procedures; triggers; by code etc). But I keep your solution(grouping in one path) in mind for possible different applications of same problem...
– freewill
Feb 14 '14 at 21:39
1
One up for use of the word crux (and also for explaining)
– masterwok
Dec 11 '14 at 4:35
Is this better than writing triggers? It seems odd to add an additional table just to get the cascade working.
– dumbledad
Feb 2 '16 at 10:04
Very good explanation. Thanks.
– Kamran
Dec 31 '18 at 17:13
1
1
Your comment helped me a lot to understand the problem that I am facing. Thank you! I would prefer turning off the cascade delete for one of the path, then handle delete of other records some other ways(stored procedures; triggers; by code etc). But I keep your solution(grouping in one path) in mind for possible different applications of same problem...
– freewill
Feb 14 '14 at 21:39
Your comment helped me a lot to understand the problem that I am facing. Thank you! I would prefer turning off the cascade delete for one of the path, then handle delete of other records some other ways(stored procedures; triggers; by code etc). But I keep your solution(grouping in one path) in mind for possible different applications of same problem...
– freewill
Feb 14 '14 at 21:39
1
1
One up for use of the word crux (and also for explaining)
– masterwok
Dec 11 '14 at 4:35
One up for use of the word crux (and also for explaining)
– masterwok
Dec 11 '14 at 4:35
Is this better than writing triggers? It seems odd to add an additional table just to get the cascade working.
– dumbledad
Feb 2 '16 at 10:04
Is this better than writing triggers? It seems odd to add an additional table just to get the cascade working.
– dumbledad
Feb 2 '16 at 10:04
Very good explanation. Thanks.
– Kamran
Dec 31 '18 at 17:13
Very good explanation. Thanks.
– Kamran
Dec 31 '18 at 17:13
add a comment |
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.
"if you're using RI constraints you can't actually build a cycle in the data!" -- good point!
– onedaywhen
Mar 23 '16 at 17:11
add a comment |
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.
"if you're using RI constraints you can't actually build a cycle in the data!" -- good point!
– onedaywhen
Mar 23 '16 at 17:11
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered May 4 '10 at 19:29
Bill CohaganBill Cohagan
17929
17929
"if you're using RI constraints you can't actually build a cycle in the data!" -- good point!
– onedaywhen
Mar 23 '16 at 17:11
add a comment |
"if you're using RI constraints you can't actually build a cycle in the data!" -- good point!
– onedaywhen
Mar 23 '16 at 17:11
"if you're using RI constraints you can't actually build a cycle in the data!" -- good point!
– onedaywhen
Mar 23 '16 at 17:11
"if you're using RI constraints you can't actually build a cycle in the data!" -- good point!
– onedaywhen
Mar 23 '16 at 17:11
add a comment |
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/
Must read article! Thanks
– Shyamal Parikh
Dec 10 '15 at 7:47
add a comment |
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/
Must read article! Thanks
– Shyamal Parikh
Dec 10 '15 at 7:47
add a comment |
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/
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/
answered May 28 '15 at 14:38
JavierJavier
1,1501935
1,1501935
Must read article! Thanks
– Shyamal Parikh
Dec 10 '15 at 7:47
add a comment |
Must read article! Thanks
– Shyamal Parikh
Dec 10 '15 at 7:47
Must read article! Thanks
– Shyamal Parikh
Dec 10 '15 at 7:47
Must read article! Thanks
– Shyamal Parikh
Dec 10 '15 at 7:47
add a comment |
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...
1
They are fairly long, so I dont think I can post them here, but I would much appreciate your help - dont know if there is some way i can send them to you? Ill try and describe it: The only constraints that exist are from 3 tables that all have fields that reference codes by a simple INT Id key. The problem seems to be that Employee has several fields that reference the code table and that i want them all to cascade to SET NULL. All I need is that when codes are deleted, the references to them should be set to null everywhere.
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 8:13
post them anyway... I don't think anyone here will mind, and the code window will format them properly in a scrolling block :)
– Eoin Campbell
May 12 '09 at 8:30
add a comment |
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...
1
They are fairly long, so I dont think I can post them here, but I would much appreciate your help - dont know if there is some way i can send them to you? Ill try and describe it: The only constraints that exist are from 3 tables that all have fields that reference codes by a simple INT Id key. The problem seems to be that Employee has several fields that reference the code table and that i want them all to cascade to SET NULL. All I need is that when codes are deleted, the references to them should be set to null everywhere.
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 8:13
post them anyway... I don't think anyone here will mind, and the code window will format them properly in a scrolling block :)
– Eoin Campbell
May 12 '09 at 8:30
add a comment |
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...
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...
edited Oct 2 '18 at 8:50
Mihai Alexandru-Ionut
30.4k64072
30.4k64072
answered May 12 '09 at 7:52
Eoin CampbellEoin Campbell
33.7k1787141
33.7k1787141
1
They are fairly long, so I dont think I can post them here, but I would much appreciate your help - dont know if there is some way i can send them to you? Ill try and describe it: The only constraints that exist are from 3 tables that all have fields that reference codes by a simple INT Id key. The problem seems to be that Employee has several fields that reference the code table and that i want them all to cascade to SET NULL. All I need is that when codes are deleted, the references to them should be set to null everywhere.
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 8:13
post them anyway... I don't think anyone here will mind, and the code window will format them properly in a scrolling block :)
– Eoin Campbell
May 12 '09 at 8:30
add a comment |
1
They are fairly long, so I dont think I can post them here, but I would much appreciate your help - dont know if there is some way i can send them to you? Ill try and describe it: The only constraints that exist are from 3 tables that all have fields that reference codes by a simple INT Id key. The problem seems to be that Employee has several fields that reference the code table and that i want them all to cascade to SET NULL. All I need is that when codes are deleted, the references to them should be set to null everywhere.
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 8:13
post them anyway... I don't think anyone here will mind, and the code window will format them properly in a scrolling block :)
– Eoin Campbell
May 12 '09 at 8:30
1
1
They are fairly long, so I dont think I can post them here, but I would much appreciate your help - dont know if there is some way i can send them to you? Ill try and describe it: The only constraints that exist are from 3 tables that all have fields that reference codes by a simple INT Id key. The problem seems to be that Employee has several fields that reference the code table and that i want them all to cascade to SET NULL. All I need is that when codes are deleted, the references to them should be set to null everywhere.
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 8:13
They are fairly long, so I dont think I can post them here, but I would much appreciate your help - dont know if there is some way i can send them to you? Ill try and describe it: The only constraints that exist are from 3 tables that all have fields that reference codes by a simple INT Id key. The problem seems to be that Employee has several fields that reference the code table and that i want them all to cascade to SET NULL. All I need is that when codes are deleted, the references to them should be set to null everywhere.
– Christian Nielsen
May 12 '09 at 8:13
post them anyway... I don't think anyone here will mind, and the code window will format them properly in a scrolling block :)
– Eoin Campbell
May 12 '09 at 8:30
post them anyway... I don't think anyone here will mind, and the code window will format them properly in a scrolling block :)
– Eoin Campbell
May 12 '09 at 8:30
add a comment |
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);
add a comment |
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);
add a comment |
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);
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);
edited Dec 16 '13 at 17:11
answered Dec 16 '13 at 16:58
RAJRAJ
854913
854913
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
answered Dec 3 '15 at 14:18
Tone ŠkodaTone Škoda
8791217
8791217
add a comment |
add a comment |
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>();
add a comment |
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>();
add a comment |
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>();
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>();
answered Oct 10 '14 at 11:35
Amirhossein MehrvarziAmirhossein Mehrvarzi
7,37542952
7,37542952
add a comment |
add a comment |
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/constraintsTake the resulting script and find
ON DELETE CASCADE
and replace withON 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!
You can change your migration file to do so (without changing sql script), i.e. in your migration file you can set onDelete action to Restrict from Cascade
– Rushi Soni
Mar 17 '18 at 11:46
It's better to specify this using fluent annotations so that you don't have to remember to do this if you end up deleting and recreating your migrations folder.
– Allen Wang
May 1 '18 at 15:08
In my experience, the fluent annotations can be used and should be used (I use them) but they are often be quite buggy. Simply specifying them in the code doesn't always work produce the expected result.
– user1477388
May 2 '18 at 10:21
add a comment |
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/constraintsTake the resulting script and find
ON DELETE CASCADE
and replace withON 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!
You can change your migration file to do so (without changing sql script), i.e. in your migration file you can set onDelete action to Restrict from Cascade
– Rushi Soni
Mar 17 '18 at 11:46
It's better to specify this using fluent annotations so that you don't have to remember to do this if you end up deleting and recreating your migrations folder.
– Allen Wang
May 1 '18 at 15:08
In my experience, the fluent annotations can be used and should be used (I use them) but they are often be quite buggy. Simply specifying them in the code doesn't always work produce the expected result.
– user1477388
May 2 '18 at 10:21
add a comment |
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/constraintsTake the resulting script and find
ON DELETE CASCADE
and replace withON 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!
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/constraintsTake the resulting script and find
ON DELETE CASCADE
and replace withON 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!
answered Nov 28 '17 at 20:37
user1477388user1477388
13.2k2199201
13.2k2199201
You can change your migration file to do so (without changing sql script), i.e. in your migration file you can set onDelete action to Restrict from Cascade
– Rushi Soni
Mar 17 '18 at 11:46
It's better to specify this using fluent annotations so that you don't have to remember to do this if you end up deleting and recreating your migrations folder.
– Allen Wang
May 1 '18 at 15:08
In my experience, the fluent annotations can be used and should be used (I use them) but they are often be quite buggy. Simply specifying them in the code doesn't always work produce the expected result.
– user1477388
May 2 '18 at 10:21
add a comment |
You can change your migration file to do so (without changing sql script), i.e. in your migration file you can set onDelete action to Restrict from Cascade
– Rushi Soni
Mar 17 '18 at 11:46
It's better to specify this using fluent annotations so that you don't have to remember to do this if you end up deleting and recreating your migrations folder.
– Allen Wang
May 1 '18 at 15:08
In my experience, the fluent annotations can be used and should be used (I use them) but they are often be quite buggy. Simply specifying them in the code doesn't always work produce the expected result.
– user1477388
May 2 '18 at 10:21
You can change your migration file to do so (without changing sql script), i.e. in your migration file you can set onDelete action to Restrict from Cascade
– Rushi Soni
Mar 17 '18 at 11:46
You can change your migration file to do so (without changing sql script), i.e. in your migration file you can set onDelete action to Restrict from Cascade
– Rushi Soni
Mar 17 '18 at 11:46
It's better to specify this using fluent annotations so that you don't have to remember to do this if you end up deleting and recreating your migrations folder.
– Allen Wang
May 1 '18 at 15:08
It's better to specify this using fluent annotations so that you don't have to remember to do this if you end up deleting and recreating your migrations folder.
– Allen Wang
May 1 '18 at 15:08
In my experience, the fluent annotations can be used and should be used (I use them) but they are often be quite buggy. Simply specifying them in the code doesn't always work produce the expected result.
– user1477388
May 2 '18 at 10:21
In my experience, the fluent annotations can be used and should be used (I use them) but they are often be quite buggy. Simply specifying them in the code doesn't always work produce the expected result.
– user1477388
May 2 '18 at 10:21
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ May 29 '15 at 7:39
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
One of the solution is here
– IsmailS
May 7 '12 at 16:40