Can a foreign key be NULL and/or duplicate?

Please clarify two things for me:

1. Can a Foreign key be NULL?
2. Can a Foreign key be duplicate?

As fair as I know, NULL shouldn't be used in foreign keys, but in some application of mine I'm able to input NULL in both Oracle and SQL Server, and I don't know why.

Short answer: Yes, it can be NULL or duplicate.

I want to explain why a foreign key might need to be null or might need to be unique or not unique. First remember a Foreign key simply requires that the value in that field must exist first in a different table (the parent table). That is all an FK is by definition. Null by definition is not a value. Null means that we do not yet know what the value is.

Let me give you a real life example. Suppose you have a database that stores sales proposals. Suppose further that each proposal only has one sales person assigned and one client. So your proposal table would have two foreign keys, one with the client ID and one with the sales rep ID. However, at the time the record is created, a sales rep is not always assigned (because no one is free to work on it yet), so the client ID is filled in but the sales rep ID might be null. In other words, usually you need the ability to have a null FK when you may not know its value at the time the data is entered, but you do know other values in the table that need to be entered. To allow nulls in an FK generally all you have to do is allow nulls on the field that has the FK. The null value is separate from the idea of it being an FK.

Whether it is unique or not unique relates to whether the table has a one-one or a one-many relationship to the parent table. Now if you have a one-one relationship, it is possible that you could have the data all in one table, but if the table is getting too wide or if the data is on a different topic (the employee - insurance example @tbone gave for instance), then you want separate tables with a FK. You would then want to make this FK either also the PK (which guarantees uniqueness) or put a unique constraint on it.

Most FKs are for a one to many relationship and that is what you get from a FK without adding a further constraint on the field. So you have an order table and the order details table for instance. If the customer orders ten items at one time, he has one order and ten order detail records that contain the same orderID as the FK.

From the horse's mouth:

> Foreign keys allow key values that are all NULL, even if there are no > matching PRIMARY or UNIQUE keys > > No Constraints on the Foreign Key > > When no other constraints are defined on the foreign key, any number > of rows in the child table can reference the same parent key value. > This model allows nulls in the foreign key. ... > > NOT NULL Constraint on the Foreign Key > > When nulls are not allowed in > a foreign key, each row in the child table must explicitly reference a > value in the parent key because nulls are not allowed in the foreign > key. > > Any number of rows in the child table can reference the same parent > key value, so this model establishes a one-to-many relationship > between the parent and foreign keys. However, each row in the child > table must have a reference to a parent key value; the absence of a > value (a null) in the foreign key is not allowed. The same example in > the previous section can be used to illustrate such a relationship. > However, in this case, employees must have a reference to a specific > department. > > UNIQUE Constraint on the Foreign Key > > When a UNIQUE constraint is > defined on the foreign key, only one row in the child table can > reference a given parent key value. This model allows nulls in the > foreign key. > > This model establishes a one-to-one relationship between the parent > and foreign keys that allows undetermined values (nulls) in the > foreign key. For example, assume that the employee table had a column > named MEMBERNO, referring to an employee membership number in the > company insurance plan. Also, a table named INSURANCE has a primary > key named MEMBERNO, and other columns of the table keep respective > information relating to an employee insurance policy. The MEMBERNO in > the employee table must be both a foreign key and a unique key: > > - To enforce referential integrity rules between the EMP_TAB and > INSURANCE tables (the FOREIGN KEY constraint) > > - To guarantee that each employee has a unique membership number (the > UNIQUE key constraint) > > UNIQUE and NOT NULL Constraints on the Foreign Key > > When both UNIQUE > and NOT NULL constraints are defined on the foreign key, only one row > in the child table can reference a given parent key value, and because > NULL values are not allowed in the foreign key, each row in the child > table must explicitly reference a value in the parent key.

See this:

Oracle 11g link

1 - Yes, since at least SQL Server 2000.

2 - Yes, as long as it's not a UNIQUE constraint or linked to a unique index.

Yes foreign key can be null as told above by senior programmers... I would add another scenario where Foreign key will required to be null.... suppose we have tables comments, Pictures and Videos in an application which allows comments on pictures and videos. In comments table we can have two Foreign Keys PicturesId, and VideosId along with the primary Key CommentId. So when you comment on a video only VideosId would be required and pictureId would be null... and if you comment on a picture only PictureId would be required and VideosId would be null...

it depends on what role this foreign key plays in your relation.

1. if this foreign key is also a key attribute in your relation, then it can't be NULL
2. if this foreign key is a normal attribute in your relation, then it can be NULL.

Here's an example using Oracle syntax:
First let's create a table COUNTRY

CREATE TABLE TBL_COUNTRY ( COUNTRY_ID VARCHAR2 (50) NOT NULL ) ;
ALTER TABLE TBL_COUNTRY ADD CONSTRAINT COUNTRY_PK PRIMARY KEY ( COUNTRY_ID ) ;

Create the table PROVINCE

CREATE TABLE TBL_PROVINCE(
PROVINCE_ID VARCHAR2 (50) NOT NULL ,
COUNTRY_ID  VARCHAR2 (50)
);
ALTER TABLE TBL_PROVINCE ADD CONSTRAINT PROVINCE_PK PRIMARY KEY ( PROVINCE_ID ) ;
ALTER TABLE TBL_PROVINCE ADD CONSTRAINT PROVINCE_COUNTRY_FK FOREIGN KEY ( COUNTRY_ID ) REFERENCES TBL_COUNTRY ( COUNTRY_ID ) ;

This runs perfectly fine in Oracle. Notice the COUNTRY_ID foreign key in the second table doesn't have "NOT NULL".

Now to insert a row into the PROVINCE table, it's sufficient to only specify the PROVINCE_ID. However, if you chose to specify a COUNTRY_ID as well, it must exist already in the COUNTRY table.

By default there are no constraints on the foreign key, foreign key can be null and duplicate.

while creating a table / altering the table, if you add any constrain of uniqueness or not null then only it will not allow the null/ duplicate values.

Simply put, "Non-identifying" relationships between Entities is part of ER-Model and is available in Microsoft Visio when designing ER-Diagram. This is required to enforce cardinality between Entities of type " zero or more than zero", or "zero or one". Note this "zero" in cardinality instead of "one" in "one to many".

Now, example of non-identifying relationship where cardinality may be "zero" (non-identifying) is when we say a record / object in one entity-A "may" or "may not" have a value as a reference to the record/s in another Entity-B.

As, there is a possibility for one record of entity-A to identify itself to the records of other Entity-B, therefore there should be a column in Entity-B to have the identity-value of the record of Entity-B. This column may be "Null" if no record in Entity-A identifies the record/s (or, object/s) in Entity-B.

In Object Oriented (real-world) Paradigm, there are situations when an object of Class-B does not necessarily depends (strongly coupled) on object of class-A for its existence, which means Class-B is loosely-coupled with Class-A such that Class-A may "Contain" (Containment) an object of Class-A, as opposed to the concept of object of Class-B must have (Composition) an object of Class-A, for its (object of class-B) creation.

From SQL Query point of view, you can query all records in entity-B which are "not null" for foreign-key reserved for Entity-B. This will bring all records having certain corresponding value for rows in Entity-A alternatively all records with Null value will be the records which do not have any record in Entity-A in Entity-B.

> Can a Foreign key be NULL?

Existing answers focused on single column scenario. If we consider multi column foreign key we have more options using MATCH [SIMPLE | PARTIAL | FULL] clause defined in SQL Standard:

> PostgreSQL-CREATE TABLE > > A value inserted into the referencing column(s) is matched against the values of the referenced table and referenced columns using the given match type. There are three match types: MATCH FULL, MATCH PARTIAL, and MATCH SIMPLE (which is the default). MATCH FULL will not allow one column of a multicolumn foreign key to be null unless all foreign key columns are null; if they are all null, the row is not required to have a match in the referenced table. MATCH SIMPLE allows any of the foreign key columns to be null; if any of them are null, the row is not required to have a match in the referenced table. MATCH PARTIAL is not yet implemented. > > (Of course, NOT NULL constraints can be applied to the referencing column(s) to prevent these cases from arising.)

Example:

CREATE TABLE A(a VARCHAR(10), b VARCHAR(10), d DATE , UNIQUE(a,b));
INSERT INTO A(a, b, d) 
VALUES (NULL, NULL, NOW()),('a', NULL, NOW()),(NULL, 'b', NOW()),('c', 'b', NOW());

CREATE TABLE B(id INT PRIMARY KEY, ref_a VARCHAR(10), ref_b VARCHAR(10));

-- MATCH SIMPLE - default behaviour nulls are allowed
ALTER TABLE B ADD CONSTRAINT B_Fk FOREIGN KEY (ref_a, ref_b) 
REFERENCES A(a,b) MATCH SIMPLE;

INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (1, NULL, 'b');  

-- (NULL/'x') 'x' value does not exists in A table, but insert is valid
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (2, NULL, 'x');  

ALTER TABLE B DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS B_Fk; -- cleanup

-- MATCH PARTIAL - not implemented
ALTER TABLE B ADD CONSTRAINT B_Fk FOREIGN KEY (ref_a, ref_b) 
REFERENCES A(a,b) MATCH PARTIAL;
-- ERROR:  MATCH PARTIAL not yet implemented

DELETE FROM B; ALTER TABLE B DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS B_Fk; -- cleanup

-- MATCH FULL nulls are not allowed
ALTER TABLE B ADD CONSTRAINT B_Fk FOREIGN KEY (ref_a, ref_b) 
REFERENCES A(a,b) MATCH FULL;

-- FK is defined, inserting NULL as part of FK
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (1, NULL, 'b');
-- ERROR:  MATCH FULL does not allow mixing of null and nonnull key values.

-- FK is defined, inserting all NULLs - valid
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (1, NULL, NULL);

db<>fiddle demo

I think it is better to consider the possible cardinality we have in the tables. We can have possible minimum cardinality zero. When it is optional, the minimum participation of tuples from the related table could be zero, Now you face the necessity of foreign key values to be allowed null.

But the answer is it all depends on the Business.

The idea of a foreign key is based on the concept of referencing a value that already exists in the main table. That is why it is called a foreign key in the other table. This concept is called referential integrity. If a foreign key is declared as a null field it will violate the the very logic of referential integrity. What will it refer to? It can only refer to something that is present in the main table. Hence, I think it would be wrong to declare a foreign key field as null.

I think foreign key of one table also primary key to some other table.So it won't allows nulls.So there is no question of having null value in foreign key.