Skip to main content

Foreign Key Constraints and Microservices

Database constraints when used in relational databases are great. They ensure data integrity at the lowest level. No one would argue against using them in practice. Essentially constraints can be thought of as assertions against your database. Rules such as requirement, default values and foreign key constraints double check your use of the database. This ensures your application is interacting in a sane manner. Databases often out live applications therefore constraints also ensure integrity long after the application has been replaced or modified.

Distributed Systems

Distributed systems change how foreign key constraints should be considered. As distributed systems own their data, each piece of data that is mastered by a single service should ensure integrity via foreign key constraints. However outside of this boundary the use of foreign keys should be avoided. This sounds disturbing at first. Especially given the traditional approach of a single system backed by a single database.


Consider a blog post service that provides a selection of posts. The service would be responsible for everything related to blog posts, but nothing more. The comments for the site are a separate service, yet there is clearly a link between posts and comments. For example, in order to display both posts and comments a link is needed.

- tblPosts (blog database)
    + Id
    + Title
    + Date
    + Body

Each post would store data related to the blog post itself.

- tblComments (comment database)
    + Id
    + PostId
    + AuthorId
    + Message
    + Date

The comment service would include a reference to each post that the comment is linked to. In this case both PostId and AuthorId would not use foreign key integrity as other services master this data.

If this was a single database both PostId and AuthorId could enforce integrity, however as each service is independent this is not possible. With physically separate databases this lack of link is quite obvious. Working around this in application code would introduce subtle bugs, and temporal coupling. Such solutions are best avoided.

Check Formats

When using the comment service, this approach leaves you with very little work to do other than simple format checks. The format of a PostId and AuthorId should be known, so the comment service can validate at this level. The core benefit is both the blog post service and comment service are highly decoupled. The comments could be changed to another service altogether, even a 3rd party provider, yet other services would remain unaware.

Valid Format, Invalid Data

Format checks will only provide so much value. There is nothing stopping a valid request for a blog post that does not exist. In cases such as this there are a few options. One is to provide a compensating action. Periodically delete any comments that do not have corresponding blog posts. An alternative would be to rely upon events. Only insert comments when a blog post is added, likewise when the service publishes the fact a post has been removed, any associated comments could be deleted.

Many Services, Single Database

Confusion and resistance around the use of foreign keys is often found when transitioning from a single database, to a single database operated upon by multiple systems. Teams adopting microservices find themselves in this dilemma usually when a large, legacy database is involved. In these scenarios existing constraints may need to be removed, or modified. Another technique is to have the independent services add dummy data in order to pass database constraints. While this is far from ideal, this pragmatic solution can work well while databases are being separated.


  • Use foreign key constraints when using a single database via a single application.
  • Modify, replace or drop constraints when multiple services are writing to a single database.
  • Independent services should own their own data. Only enforce integrity within service boundaries.
  • Outside of service boundaries, use format checks to prevent errors.
  • Rely on compensating actions or events for data management.


Popular posts from this blog

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …