Avoiding Data Loss: Understanding the `:on_delete` Option in Elixir Migrations

January 22, 2023|
4 min read
  • elixir
  • ecto
  • postgres
  • sqlite
  • database

When working with Elixir and Ecto, it is crucial to fully understand the on_delete option for references (aka foreign keys) in migrations. This option dictates the action to be taken on related records when the parent record is deleted, and is essential for avoiding orphaned or inconsistent data.

The default value for the on_delete option on references is :nothing. However, it's important to note that this default behavior may lead to orphaned or inconsistent data. Instead, consider the following options for on_delete:

  • :delete_all option will delete all related records.

  • :nilify_all option will set the foreign key on all related records to NULL.

  • :restrict option will raise an error if you try to delete a parent record that has related records.

Additionally, it's important to note that some databases have default behaviors that differ from Ecto's defaults. This makes on_delete: :nothing confusing and requires deeper familiarity with both your database, and some implementation details of the Ecto adapter for it.

For example, in Postgres, trying to delete a referenced record will fail with the following error, making :nothing more like :restrict:

[23503] ERROR: update or delete on table "authors" violates
foreign key constraint "books_author_id_fkey" on table
"books" Detail: Key (id)=(2) is still referenced from
table "books".

In contrast, SQLite will allow deletion of parent records without any warnings or errors. However, SQLite does not maintain ID sequences in a separate table by default. This can lead to severe data corruption, as new records in the parent table can get the same ID as a previously deleted record, and subsequently associated with orphaned records in the child table. The only way around this, would be to explicitly set AUTOINCREMENT on the ID column, which the ecto_sqlite3 adapter doesn't currently support. Additionally, maintaining a sequence table in SQLite carries a performance penalty.

The obvious use-case

Here's an example of a common use-case:

defmodule BookStore.Repo.Migrations.CreateAuthorsAndBooks do
  use Ecto.Migration

  def change do
    create table(:authors) do
      add :name, :string, null: false

    create table(:books) do
      add :name, :string, null: false
      add :author_id, references(:authors, on_delete: :delete_all), null: false


    create index(:books, [:author_id])

In this example two tables will be created, authors and books, when an author row is deleted, all books associated with that author will be deleted as well.

This is pretty straight forward, and after understanding this example you might be tempted to always use :on_delete, but there are a few "gotchas".

Slightly more complicated and less intuitive use-case

One common pitfall when working with the on_delete option is thinking of the relationship in the wrong direction.

For example, let's say you have the following scenario:

Merchants have orders for customers and each customer has multiple mailing_addresses. A customer can choose to use only one mailing_address per order.

So in this example you have:

defmodule BookStore.Repo.Migrations.CreateCustomersOrdersAndMailingAddresses do
  use Ecto.Migration

  def change do
    create table(:customers) do
      add :name, :string, null: false

    create table(:mailing_addresses) do
      add :customer_id, references(:customers, on_delete: :delete_all), null: false
      add :nickname, :string, null: false
      add :address_1, :string, null: false
      add :address_2, :string
      add :city, :string, null: false
      add :province_code, :string, null: false
      add :zipcode, :string, null: false
      add :country_code, :string, null: false

    create table(:orders) do
      add :name, :string, null: false
      add :customer_id, references(:customers, on_delete: :delete_all), null: false
      add :mailing_address_id, references(:mailing_address, on_delete: :delete_all), null: false


    create index(:mailing_addresses, [:customer_id])
    create index(:orders, [:customer_id])
    create index(:orders, [:mailing_address_id])

Did you notice the bug here? It can almost be an instinct to put :delete_all on all foreign keys, but in this instance if a customer deletes a mailing address that is associated with an order, the order will also be deleted.

I find it helpful to think of on_delete as:

add :some_id, references(parent, when_parent_is_deleted: :delete_all_from_this_table)

In this case, we should consider one of these options instead:

  • Removing the null: false from the mailing_address_id on orders and change :delete_all to :nilify_all
  • Using soft deletes across the board, rather than actually deleting, so that we always retain copies of the orders, customers and accounts.

My choice in this particular case would be to only soft delete records for accounting and customer support purposes. If privacy is a big concern, I would opt for anonymizing the data after soft-deleting it.

When working with the on_delete option in migrations, it's important to understand the implications of each option, be familiar with the default behaviors of the database and Ecto adapter being used, and test migrations in a development environment before deploying to production to prevent data loss and corruption.

© 2023, Dorian Karter