[irrational]

> if that table's primary key is a foreign key in another table - imagine deleting a user and then having no idea who made an order

Assuming you have constraints set up correctly (on delete no action or on delete restrict) then how could this ever happen? If you don’t have constraints set up correctly…

[vericiab]

Assuming you're deleting the row because it shouldn't be used by read queries, constraints like you described prevent the problem of having orphaned records in the child table but also prevent you from achieving your goal. On delete cascade would allow you to achieve your goal and prevent the orphaned records but could lead to deleting more than intended (especially if the child table is also a parent table referenced by further foreign key constraints, its children could in turn have children, etc). Of course, with no action/restrict you could also manually cascade the delete, but if you actually don't want to delete a child row and there's not an appropriate alternative value for its foreign key then you're in a bit of a pickle.

So if you want to delete a user but keep the records of their orders and still know who made those orders, then some form of soft delete is probably your best option. I believe that's the point rm999 was making (in response to the article asserting that soft deletes are a "data model mistake"). Properly configured constraints can prevent an "oops" but don't really do anything to solve the problem of this sort of delete from some contexts but not others.

[andrewprock]

The chance that you don't have constraints set up correctly is indistinguishable from 100%.

[dalyons]

Foreign key constraints are a waste of effort for most at-scale web apps. They guard against a subset of problems that aren’t actually problems (orphaned rows) at a putative cost (for the db)

[irrational]

I disagree. Any fairly competent DBA will know how to setup the constraints correctly. It's not rocket science. If you can think logically enough to program, you can think logically enough to set up constraints correctly.

[ako]

This should be the responsibility of the application developer creating the database schema and queries. A constraint is part of your application logic, not of the administration of the database.

[yxhuvud]

I've yet to see anything I'd consider calling a startup having a DBA. I'm positively impressed if they even default to use foreign keys.

[cerved]

Not everybody has a DBA :(

[irrational]

Well, my team has never had an official DBA either. But we do all the tasks of a DBA. I've installed/upgraded, configured, tested backups, and hardened Oracle and Postgres more times than I can remember. We do all our own DML and DDL work. It really isn't hard to do it right.

[quietbritishjim]

That would just make the data loss problem worse still. I realise OP just chose an arbitrary example, but if you really are talking about users and orders, and if you delete a user, then really deleting the records for their associated orders is even worse than losing track of who made them.

[irrational]

I realize you might not be familiar with how database constraints work, but an on delete no action would totally prevent the user from being deleted. You literally cannot delete the user and their associated orders will definitely not be deleted.

[stouset]

GP did not suggest ON DELETE CASCADE.