How liberal should I be with NOT NULL columns?

Question

I'm designing a database schema, and I'm wondering what criteria I should use for deciding whether each column should be nullable or not.

Should I only mark as NOT NULL only those columns that absolutely must be filled out for a row to make any sense at all to my application?

Or should I mark all columns that I intend to never be null?

What are the performance implications of small vs large numbers of NOT NULL columns?

I assume lots of NOT NULL columns would slow down inserts a bit, but it might actually speed up selects, since the query execution plan generator has more information about the columns..

Can someone with more knowledge than me give me the low-down?

Answer 1

There are no significant performance consequences. Don't even think about considering this as an issue. To do so is a huge early optimization antipattern.

"Should I only mark as NOT NULL only those columns that absolutely must be filled out for a row to make any sense at all to my application?"

Yes. It's as simple as that. You're a lot better off with a NULLable column without any NULL values in it, than with the need for NULLs and having to fake it. And anyway, any ambiguous cases are better filtered out in your Business Rules.

---

EDIT:

There's another argument for nullable fields that I think is ultimately the most compeilling, which is the Use Case argument. We've all been subject to data entry forms that require values for some fields; and we've all abandoned forms where we had no sensible values for required fields. Ultimately, the application, the form, and the database design are only defensible if they reflect the user requirements; and it's clear that there are many, many database columns for which users can present no value - sometimes at given points in the business process, sometimes never.

Answer 2

I would tend to agree with dorfier.

Be serious in your application about being flexible when receiving database NULL values and treating them as empty values, and you give yourself a lot of flexibility to let NULL's get inserted for values you don't specify.

There's probably a lot of cases where you need some very serious data integrity (and/or the intense speed optimization of disallowing NULL fields) but I think that these concerns are tempered against the extra effort it takes to make sure every field has a default value and/or gets set to a sensible value.

Answer 3

I have found marking a column as NOT NULL is usually a good idea unless you have a useful meaning for NULL in the column. Otherwise you may unexpectedly find NULL in there later when you realise you don't want it, and changing is harder.

Answer 4

If you can think long term, having NULLs in a column affects how you can design your queries. Whether you use CASE statements, COALESCE, or have to explicitly test for NULL values can make the decision for you.

From a performance standpoint, it's faster to not have to worry about NULLS. From a design standpoint, using NULL is an easy way to know that an item has never been filled in. Useful examples include "UpdatedDateTime" columns. NULL means an item has never been updated.

Personally I allow NULLs in most situations.

Answer 5

Honestly, I've always thought NOT NULL should be the default. NULL is the odd special case, and you should make a case for it whenever you use it. Plus it's much easier to change a column from NOT NULL to nullable than it is to go the other way.

Answer 6

Err on the side of NOT NULL. You will, at some point, have to decide what NULL "means" in your application - more than likely, it will be different things for different columns. Some of the common cases are "not specified", "unknown", "inapplicable", "hasn't happened yet", etc. You will know when you need one of those values, and then you can appropriately allow a NULLable column and code the logic around it.

Allowing random things to be NULL is, sooner or later, always a nightmare IME. Use NULL carefully and sparingly - and know what it means in your logic.

Edit: There seems to be an idea that I'm arguing for NO null columns, ever. That's ridiculous. NULL is useful, but only where it's expected.

Le Dorfier's DateOfDeath example is a good example. A NULL DateOfDeath would indicate "not happened yet". Now, I can write a view LivingPersons WHERE DateOfDeath IS NULL.

But, what does a NULL OrderDate mean? That the order wasn't placed yet? Even though there's a record in the Order table? How about a NULL address? Those are the thoughts that should go through your head before you let NULL be a value.

Back to DateOfDeath - a query of persons WHERE DateOfDeath > '1/1/1999' would not return the NULL records - even though we logically know they must die after 1999. Is that what you want? If not, then you better include OR DateOfDeath IS NULL in that query. If you allow all columns to be NULL, you have to think about that every single time you write a query. IME, that's too much of a mental tax for the 10% or so of columns that actually have legit meaning when they're NULL.

Answer 7

Stick with NOT NULL on everything until someone squeaks with pain about it. Then remove it on one column at a time, as reluctantly as possible. Avoid nulls in your DB as much as you can, for as long as you can.

Answer 8

I try to avoid using NULL's in the database as much as possible. This means that character fields are always not null. Same for numeric fields, especially anything representing money or similar (shares, units, etc).

I have 2 exceptions:

1. Dates where the date might not be known (eg. DivorcedOn)
2. Optional foriegn key relationships (MarriedToPersonId). Though on occasion I have used "blank" rows in the foreign key table and made the relatonship mandatory (eg. JobDescriptionCode)

I have also on occasion used explicit bit fields for "unknown"/"not set" (eg. JobDescriptionCode and IsEmployeed).

I have a few core reasons why:

1. NULLs will always cause problems in numeric fields. Always. Always. Always. Doesn't matter how careful you are at somepoint select X + Y as Total is going to happen and it will return NULL.
2. NULLs can easily cause problems in string fields, typically address fields (eg. select AddrLine1 + AddrLine2 from Addresses).
3. Guarding against NULLs in the business logic tier is a tedious waste of effort... just don't let them in the DB and you can save 100's of lines of code.

My preferred defaults:

• Strings -> "", aka an empty string
• Numbers -> 0
• Dates -> Today or NULL (see exception #1)
• Bit -> false

Answer 9

You may find Chris Date's Database In Depth a useful resource for these kinds of questions. You can get a taste for his ideas in this interview, where he says among other things:

So yes, I do think SQL is pretty bad. But you explicitly ask what its major flaws are. Well, here are a few:

• Duplicate rows
• Nulls
• Left-to-right column ordering
• Unnamed columns and duplicate column names
• Failure to support "=" properly
• Pointers
• High redundancy

In my own experience, nearly all "planned nulls" can be represented better with a child table that has a foreign key to a base table. Participating in the child table is optional, and that's where the null/not null distinction is actually made.

This maps well to the interpretation of a relation as a first-order logic proposition. It also is just common sense. When one does not know Bob's address, does one write in one's Rolodex:

Bob. ____

Or does one merely refrain from filling out an address card for Bob until one has an actual address for him?

Edit: Date's argument appears on pages 53-55 of Database In Depth, under the section heading "Why Nulls are Prohibited."

Answer 10

I lean toward NOT NULL unless I see a reason otherwise -- like someone else said, like it or not, NULL is the weird special case.

One of my favorites in regards to NULL is:

SELECT F1 FROM T WHERE F2 <> 'OK'

...which (in DB2 at least) won't include any rows where f2 is null -- because in relational jargon, (NULL <> 'OK') IS NULL. But your intent was to return all not-OK rows. You need an extra OR predicate, or write F2 DISTINCT FROM 'OK' instead (which is special case coding in the first place).

IMO, NULL is just one of those programmer's tools, like pointer arithmetic or operator overloading, that requires as much art as science.

Joe Celko writes about this in SQL For Smarties -- the trap of using NULL in an application is that its meaning is, well, undefined. It could mean unknown, uninitialized, incomplete, not applicable -- or as in the dumb example above, does it mean OK or not-OK?

Answer 11

What are the performance implications of small vs large numbers of NOT NULL columns?

This may be stating the obvious, but, when a column is nullable, each record will require 1 extra bit of storage. So a BIT column will consume 100% more storage when it is nullable, while a UNIQUEIDENTIFIER will consume only 0.8% more storage when it is nullable.

In the pathological case, if your database has a single table consisting of a single BIT column, the decision to make that column nullable would reduce your database's performance in half. However, under the vast majority of real world scenarios, nullability will not have a measurable performance impact.

Answer 12

Personally I think you should mark the columns as Null or not null based on what kind of data they contain, if there is a genuine requirement for the data to always be there, and whether the data is always known at the time of input. Marking a column as not null when the users don't have the data will force then to make up the data which makes all your data useless (this how you end up with junk data such as an email field containing "[email protected]"). Failing to require something that must be there for the process to work(say the key field to show what customer made the order) is equally stupid. Null vice not null is a data integrity issue at the heart, do what makes the most sense towards keeping your data useable.

Answer 13

Thanks for all the great answers, guys. You gave me a lot to think about, and helped me form my own opinion/strategy, which boils down to this:

Allow nulls if-and-only-if a null in that column would have a specific meaning to your application.

A couple of common meanings for null:

• Anything that comes directly from the user
  • Here null means "user did not enter"
  • For these columns, it's better to allow nulls, or you'll just get [email protected] type input anyway.
• Foreign keys for "0 or 1" relationships
  • null means "no related row"
  • So allow nulls for these columns
  • This one is controversial, but this is my opinion.

In general, if you cannot think of a useful meaning for null in a column, it should be NOT NULL. You can always change it to nullable later.

Example of the sort of thing I ended up with:

create table SalesOrderLine (
    Id int identity primary key,
    -- a line must have exactly one header:
    IdHeader int not null foreign key references SalesOrderHeader, 
    LineNumber int not null, -- a line must have a line number
    IdItem int not null, -- cannot have null item
    Quantity decimal not null, -- maybe could sell 0, but not null
    UnitPrice decimal not null, -- price can be 0, but not null
    -- a null delivery address means not for delivery:
    IdDeliveryAddress int foreign key references Address, 
    Comment varchar(100), -- null means user skipped it
    Cancelled bit not null default (0) -- true boolean, not three-state!
    Delivered datetime, -- null means not yet delivered
    Logged datetime not null default (GetDate()) -- must be filled out
)

Answer 14

Any nullable column is a violation of third normal form.

But, that's not an answer.

Maybe this is: there are two types of columns in databases - ones that hold the structure of the data, and ones that hold the content of the data. Keys are structure, user-enterable fields are data. Other things - well - it's a judgment call.

Stuff that's structure, that is used in join clauses, is typically not null. Stuff that's data is typically nullable.

When you have a column that hold one of a list of choices or null (no choice made), it is usually a good idea to have a specific value for "no choice made" rather than a nullable column. These types of columns often participate in joins.

Answer 15

Using 'Not Null' or 'Null' should be primarily driven by your particular persistance requirements.

Having a value being Nullable means there are two or three states (three states with Bit fields)

For instance; if I had a bit field which was called 'IsApproved' and the value is set at a later stage than insertion. Then there are three states:

1. 'IsApproved' Not answered
2. 'IsApproved' Is Approved
3. 'IsApproved' Is Not Approved

So if a field can be legitimently considered Not Answered and there is no default value that is suitable. These fields should be considered for being nullable