Recently, there has been a lively discussion in the SQL Server community about the use of soft delete, specifically the practice of adding an “IsDeleted” column to a table instead of performing a real delete. This approach has its proponents and opponents, each with their own valid arguments.

One of the main arguments against using soft delete is that it can lead to confusion and inconsistency in the data. Karen Lopez succinctly captures this sentiment by stating, “But setting a deleted flag for one-off delete instead of a real delete when the business means delete is just not cricket.” In other words, if the business logic dictates that a record should be permanently deleted, then using a flag to mark it as deleted can be misleading.

On the other hand, proponents of soft delete argue that it provides a safety net in case of accidental deletions. Tyler Clendenin points out that end users often delete records without considering the consequences, and using an “IsDeleted” column can help prevent data loss. Additionally, Phani highlights the usefulness of such columns in tables used for metadata setup.

Another interesting perspective comes from Marko Parkkola, who suggests using an “IsDisabled” field instead of deleting records. This approach allows for the preservation of referential integrity while indicating that the record is no longer valid. Similarly, David Ames proposes using a “DeletedDate” column and a separate process to purge deleted records after a certain period of time.

It’s important to note that the suitability of soft delete depends on the nature of the table and the specific requirements of the business. John McLusky emphasizes this point, stating, “It depends very much on the nature of the table and your data.” Feodor adds that just because a technique may seem poor at first sight, it doesn’t mean it should be disregarded entirely.

Some database systems, like PostGreSQL, have built-in mechanisms, such as the “VACUUM” command, to reclaim space occupied by deleted records. This approach, as mentioned by Wilfred van Dijk, offers an alternative to soft delete.

There are also considerations regarding foreign keys and archived data. Husain raises the question of how deleting a record from the Orders table and inserting it into an ArchivedOrders table would work if another table has a foreign key reference on the OrderID column. This highlights the need for careful planning and implementation when using soft delete.

Ultimately, the decision to use soft delete or real delete depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the database and the business. As Malathi, an experienced DBA, points out, soft delete can be a preferable option when it comes to restoring a large database due to a careless delete.

It’s worth mentioning that soft delete does come with its own challenges. Robert Cook shares his dislike for the requirement of adding a WHERE clause to every SQL statement to ignore the “deleted” rows. This can lead to reporting discrepancies if the filter is accidentally omitted.

Various suggestions and alternatives have been proposed throughout the discussion. Paulo suggests flagging rows that need to be removed and creating a view that only shows active rows. Jeff mentions the use of Un-Delete procedures to restore deleted records. Kenny Eliasson raises the point that the term “IsDeleted” may not accurately reflect the action being taken.

In conclusion, the debate between soft delete and real delete in SQL Server is ongoing. It is important to carefully consider the specific requirements, data integrity, and performance implications before deciding which approach to adopt. What is your opinion on this matter? Join the conversation and share your thoughts!