我正在查看 SQL Server 2008 的 AdventureWorks 示例数据库,我在他们的创建脚本中看到他们倾向于使用以下内容:
ALTER TABLE [Production].[ProductCostHistory] WITH CHECK ADD
CONSTRAINT [FK_ProductCostHistory_Product_ProductID] FOREIGN KEY([ProductID])
REFERENCES [Production].[Product] ([ProductID])
GO
紧随其后的是:
ALTER TABLE [Production].[ProductCostHistory] CHECK CONSTRAINT
[FK_ProductCostHistory_Product_ProductID]
GO
我看到外键(如此处)、唯一约束和常规
CHECK
约束; DEFAULT
约束使用我更熟悉的常规格式,例如:
ALTER TABLE [Production].[ProductCostHistory] ADD CONSTRAINT
[DF_ProductCostHistory_ModifiedDate] DEFAULT (getdate()) FOR [ModifiedDate]
GO
第一种方法与第二种方法之间有什么区别(如果有的话)?
第一个语法是多余的 -
WITH CHECK
是新约束的默认值,并且默认情况下该约束也是打开的。
此语法是由 SQL Management Studio 在生成 SQL 脚本时生成的 - 我假设它是某种额外的冗余,可能是为了确保即使表的默认约束行为发生更改也启用约束。
演示这是如何工作的--
CREATE TABLE T1 (ID INT NOT NULL, SomeVal CHAR(1));
ALTER TABLE T1 ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_ID] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (ID);
CREATE TABLE T2 (FKID INT, SomeOtherVal CHAR(2));
INSERT T1 (ID, SomeVal) SELECT 1, 'A';
INSERT T1 (ID, SomeVal) SELECT 2, 'B';
INSERT T2 (FKID, SomeOtherVal) SELECT 1, 'A1';
INSERT T2 (FKID, SomeOtherVal) SELECT 1, 'A2';
INSERT T2 (FKID, SomeOtherVal) SELECT 2, 'B1';
INSERT T2 (FKID, SomeOtherVal) SELECT 2, 'B2';
INSERT T2 (FKID, SomeOtherVal) SELECT 3, 'C1'; --orphan
INSERT T2 (FKID, SomeOtherVal) SELECT 3, 'C2'; --orphan
--Add the FK CONSTRAINT will fail because of existing orphaned records
ALTER TABLE T2 ADD CONSTRAINT FK_T2_T1 FOREIGN KEY (FKID) REFERENCES T1 (ID); --fails
--Same as ADD above, but explicitly states the intent to CHECK the FK values before creating the CONSTRAINT
ALTER TABLE T2 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK_T2_T1 FOREIGN KEY (FKID) REFERENCES T1 (ID); --fails
--Add the CONSTRAINT without checking existing values
ALTER TABLE T2 WITH NOCHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK_T2_T1 FOREIGN KEY (FKID) REFERENCES T1 (ID); --succeeds
ALTER TABLE T2 CHECK CONSTRAINT FK_T2_T1; --succeeds since the CONSTRAINT is attributed as NOCHECK
--Attempt to enable CONSTRAINT fails due to orphans
ALTER TABLE T2 WITH CHECK CHECK CONSTRAINT FK_T2_T1; --fails
--Remove orphans
DELETE FROM T2 WHERE FKID NOT IN (SELECT ID FROM T1);
--Enabling the CONSTRAINT succeeds
ALTER TABLE T2 WITH CHECK CHECK CONSTRAINT FK_T2_T1; --succeeds; orphans removed
--Clean up
DROP TABLE T2;
DROP TABLE T1;
除了上述关于可信约束的精彩评论:
select * from sys.foreign_keys where is_not_trusted = 1 ;
select * from sys.check_constraints where is_not_trusted = 1 ;
不受信任的约束,正如其名称所暗示的那样,不能被信任准确地表示表中数据当前的状态。但是,可以信任它来检查将来添加和修改的数据。
此外,查询优化器会忽略不受信任的约束。
启用检查约束和外键约束的代码相当糟糕,“检查”一词有三种含义。
ALTER TABLE [Production].[ProductCostHistory]
WITH CHECK -- This means "Check the existing data in the table".
CHECK CONSTRAINT -- This means "enable the check or foreign key constraint".
[FK_ProductCostHistory_Product_ProductID] -- The name of the check or foreign key constraint, or "ALL".
WITH NOCHECK
...
WITH CHECK
确实是默认行为,但是将其包含在您的编码中是一个很好的做法。
替代行为当然是使用
WITH NOCHECK
,因此最好明确定义您的意图。当您使用/修改/切换内联分区时经常使用此功能。
外键和检查约束具有可信或不可信以及启用和禁用的概念。有关完整详细信息,请参阅 MSDN 页面
ALTER TABLE
。
WITH CHECK
是添加新外键和检查约束的默认值,WITH NOCHECK
是重新启用禁用的外键和检查约束的默认值。了解其中的差异很重要。
话虽如此,实用程序生成的任何明显冗余的语句只是为了安全和/或易于编码。别担心他们。
这是我编写的一些代码,用于帮助我们识别和纠正数据库中不受信任的约束。它生成解决每个问题的代码。
;WITH Untrusted (ConstraintType, ConstraintName, ConstraintTable, ParentTable, IsDisabled, IsNotForReplication, IsNotTrusted, RowIndex) AS
(
SELECT
'Untrusted FOREIGN KEY' AS FKType
, fk.name AS FKName
, OBJECT_NAME( fk.parent_object_id) AS FKTableName
, OBJECT_NAME( fk.referenced_object_id) AS PKTableName
, fk.is_disabled
, fk.is_not_for_replication
, fk.is_not_trusted
, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY OBJECT_NAME( fk.parent_object_id), OBJECT_NAME( fk.referenced_object_id), fk.name) AS RowIndex
FROM
sys.foreign_keys fk
WHERE
is_ms_shipped = 0
AND fk.is_not_trusted = 1
UNION ALL
SELECT
'Untrusted CHECK' AS KType
, cc.name AS CKName
, OBJECT_NAME( cc.parent_object_id) AS CKTableName
, NULL AS ParentTable
, cc.is_disabled
, cc.is_not_for_replication
, cc.is_not_trusted
, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY OBJECT_NAME( cc.parent_object_id), cc.name) AS RowIndex
FROM
sys.check_constraints cc
WHERE
cc.is_ms_shipped = 0
AND cc.is_not_trusted = 1
)
SELECT
u.ConstraintType
, u.ConstraintName
, u.ConstraintTable
, u.ParentTable
, u.IsDisabled
, u.IsNotForReplication
, u.IsNotTrusted
, u.RowIndex
, 'RAISERROR( ''Now CHECKing {%i of %i)--> %s ON TABLE %s'', 0, 1'
+ ', ' + CAST( u.RowIndex AS VARCHAR(64))
+ ', ' + CAST( x.CommandCount AS VARCHAR(64))
+ ', ' + '''' + QUOTENAME( u.ConstraintName) + ''''
+ ', ' + '''' + QUOTENAME( u.ConstraintTable) + ''''
+ ') WITH NOWAIT;'
+ 'ALTER TABLE ' + QUOTENAME( u.ConstraintTable) + ' WITH CHECK CHECK CONSTRAINT ' + QUOTENAME( u.ConstraintName) + ';' AS FIX_SQL
FROM Untrusted u
CROSS APPLY (SELECT COUNT(*) AS CommandCount FROM Untrusted WHERE ConstraintType = u.ConstraintType) x
ORDER BY ConstraintType, ConstraintTable, ParentTable;
我敢说,感觉这可能是一个 SSMS(倒置逻辑)bug;因为第二个(现有/重新启用约束)语句需要显式包含/使用“WITH CHECK”,而不是第一个(默认为新/“with-check”)。
我想知道他们是否刚刚将“WITH CHECK”子句的生成应用于错误的 SQL 语句/第一个 T-SQL 语句而不是第二个 - 假设他们试图默认使用检查对于这两种情况 - 对于新约束或(重新启用)现有约束。
(对我来说似乎很有意义,因为禁用检查约束的时间越长,理论上同时出现损坏/检查约束无效数据的可能性就越大。)
我已阅读此主题。谢谢!
因此,我还从 SSMS 运行了以下声明:
ALTER TABLE datadictionary.[TBFB-DataProductEntity] ADD CONSTRAINT
[FK_TBFB-DataProductEntity_TBFB-DataCategory] FOREIGN KEY
(
DataCategoryId
) REFERENCES datadictionary.[TBFB-DataCategory]
(
SystemId
) ON UPDATE NO ACTION
ON DELETE NO ACTION
GO
但是,当从 SSMS 编写 datadictionary.TBFB-DataProductEntity 的 DDL 脚本时,它同时具有WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT 和 CHECK CONSTRAINT,请参见下文:
/****** Object: Table [datadictionary].[TBFB-DataProductEntity] Script Date:
4/22/2024 7:40:09 PM ******/
SET ANSI_NULLS ON
GO
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
GO
CREATE TABLE [datadictionary].[TBFB-DataProductEntity](
[SystemId] [int] NOT NULL,
[DataCategoryId] [int] NULL,
PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[SystemId] ASC
)WITH (STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF,
OPTIMIZE_FOR_SEQUENTIAL_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
ALTER TABLE [datadictionary].[TBFB-DataProductEntity] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT
[FK_TBFB-DataProductEntity_TBFB-DataCategory] FOREIGN KEY([DataCategoryId])
REFERENCES [datadictionary].[TBFB-DataCategory] ([SystemId])
GO
ALTER TABLE [datadictionary].[TBFB-DataProductEntity] CHECK CONSTRAINT [FK_TBFB-
DataProductEntity_TBFB-DataCategory]
GO
所以这是一个 SSMS 错误,因此我们应该忽略 CHECK CONSTRAINT,对吗?