SQL Server: default constraint

Table column has default constraint.
Is better to have it's value in INSERT statement or let DEFAULT work?
Thanks.
quasar_eeAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Webinar] Streamline your web hosting managementRegister Today

x
 
Jim HornConnect With a Mentor Microsoft SQL Server Developer, Architect, and AuthorCommented:
Like any good consultant I'll say 'it depends'

I'll vote primarily for the default, if for no other reason than it insures that there are no NULL values being inserted into the column, which can be a colossal pain to deal with.

Having it in the INSERT is a good idea as well, just so there's no dependancy on the table schema.
0
 
JavierVeraConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Lets say you're asked to prepare a status field in a table wich has over a year in production envyroment.


If you add a new field, then you should update the fields to the initial status, lets say you put a zero.

In this scenario, you have to think how many different stored procedures are inserting data in this table.

Now, if you find several procedure that need the factoring/modification to this field, your best option is to change the table with a default value for such field.

Sometimes, for some reports you wouldn't like to use  the "isnull(field1,0)".
So it depends wether you want to use a default value or not..

you have to consider the impact on the already developed part of the application.

Maybe it will impact a lot, maybe it wont.
Check for the reports too.
0
 
ZberteocCommented:
Another advantage of using a default in table column definition is that it will insure that there is NO WAY to get passed it no matter how you execute the insert.

Think of this scenario: in one place where insert is coded you will use the default value, then after a while another developer or dba will code/run an insert without any default, because they forgot, didn't care, whatever reason, and now you have an unwanted result.
0
All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.