I have a table with this layout:
CREATE TABLE Favorites ( FavoriteId uuid NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, UserId uuid NOT NULL, RecipeId uuid NOT NULL, MenuId uuid )
I want to create a unique constraint similar to this:
ALTER TABLE Favorites ADD CONSTRAINT Favorites_UniqueFavorite UNIQUE(UserId, MenuId, RecipeId);
However, this will allow multiple rows with the same (UserId, RecipeId)
, if MenuId IS NULL
. I want to allow NULL
in MenuId
to store a favorite that has no associated menu, but I only want at most one of these rows per user/recipe pair.
The ideas I have so far are:
Use some hard-coded UUID (such as all zeros) instead of null.
However,MenuId
has a FK constraint on each user’s menus, so I’d then have to create a special “null” menu for every user which is a hassle.Check for existence of a null entry using a trigger instead.
I think this is a hassle and I like avoiding triggers wherever possible. Plus, I don’t trust them to guarantee my data is never in a bad state.Just forget about it and check for the previous existence of a null entry in the middle-ware or in a insert function, and don’t have this constraint.
I’m using Postgres 9.0.
Is there any method I’m overlooking?
Advertisement
Answer
Create two partial indexes:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX favo_3col_uni_idx ON favorites (user_id, menu_id, recipe_id) WHERE menu_id IS NOT NULL; CREATE UNIQUE INDEX favo_2col_uni_idx ON favorites (user_id, recipe_id) WHERE menu_id IS NULL;
This way, there can only be one combination of (user_id, recipe_id)
where menu_id IS NULL
, effectively implementing the desired constraint.
Possible drawbacks:
- You cannot have a foreign key referencing
(user_id, menu_id, recipe_id)
. (It seems unlikely you’d want a FK reference three columns wide – use the PK column instead!) - You cannot base
CLUSTER
on a partial index. - Queries without a matching
WHERE
condition cannot use the partial index.
If you need a complete index, you can alternatively drop the WHERE
condition from favo_3col_uni_idx
and your requirements are still enforced.
The index, now comprising the whole table, overlaps with the other one and gets bigger. Depending on typical queries and the percentage of NULL
values, this may or may not be useful. In extreme situations it may even help to maintain all three indexes (the two partial ones and a total on top).
This is a good solution for a single nullable column, maybe for two. But it gets out of hands quickly for more as you need a separate partial index for every combination of nullable columns, so the number grows binomially. For multiple nullable columns, see instead:
Aside: I advise not to use mixed case identifiers in PostgreSQL.