312

I'm using Entity Framework 5.0 Code First;

public class Entity
 {
   [Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
   public string EntityId { get; set;}
   public int FirstColumn  { get; set;}
   public int SecondColumn  { get; set;}
 }

I want to make the combination between FirstColumn and SecondColumn as unique.

Example:

Id  FirstColumn  SecondColumn 
1       1              1       = OK
2       2              1       = OK
3       3              3       = OK
5       3              1       = THIS OK 
4       3              3       = GRRRRR! HERE ERROR

Is there anyway to do that?

Leniel Maccaferri
  • 100,159
  • 46
  • 371
  • 480
Bassam Alugili
  • 16,345
  • 7
  • 52
  • 70

12 Answers12

411

With Entity Framework 6.1, you can now do this:

[Index("IX_FirstAndSecond", 1, IsUnique = true)]
public int FirstColumn { get; set; }

[Index("IX_FirstAndSecond", 2, IsUnique = true)]
public int SecondColumn { get; set; }

The second parameter in the attribute is where you can specify the order of the columns in the index.
More information: MSDN

charlie
  • 4,612
  • 1
  • 22
  • 18
  • 14
    This is correct for data annotations :), if you want the answer for using the fluent API see Niaher's answer below http://stackoverflow.com/a/25779348/2362036 – tekiegirl Oct 29 '14 at 13:37
  • 8
    But I need it working for foreign keys! Can you help me? – feedc0de Apr 27 '15 at 19:34
  • 2
    @0xFEEDC0DE see my answer below that address the use of foreign keys in indices. – Kryptos May 07 '15 at 15:03
  • 1
    Can you post how to use this index with linq to sql? – Bluebaron Dec 07 '15 at 07:59
  • 4
    @JJS - I got it to work where one of the properties was a foreign key.. by any chance is your key a varchar or nvarchar? There is a limit to the length of which can be used as a unique key.. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2863993/is-of-a-type-that-is-invalid-for-use-as-a-key-column-in-an-index – Dave Lawrence Dec 14 '15 at 12:23
  • 2
    using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema; – Josh Jul 15 '16 at 17:55
  • 1
    please note that this code creates a "unique index" but not a "unique key" which are different things. – Sinan ILYAS Jul 18 '17 at 10:23
  • What if I want to disallow the switch as well? – John Demetriou May 16 '22 at 13:46
231

I found three ways to solve the problem.

Unique indexes in EntityFramework Core:

First approach:

protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
   modelBuilder.Entity<Entity>()
   .HasIndex(p => new {p.FirstColumn , p.SecondColumn}).IsUnique();
}

The second approach to create Unique Constraints with EF Core by using Alternate Keys.

Examples

One column:

modelBuilder.Entity<Blog>().HasAlternateKey(c => c.SecondColumn).HasName("IX_SingeColumn");

Multiple columns:

modelBuilder.Entity<Entity>().HasAlternateKey(c => new [] {c.FirstColumn, c.SecondColumn}).HasName("IX_MultipleColumns");

EF 6 and below:


First approach:

dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(string.Format(
                        @"CREATE UNIQUE INDEX LX_{0} ON {0} ({1})", 
                                 "Entitys", "FirstColumn, SecondColumn"));

This approach is very fast and useful but the main problem is that Entity Framework doesn't know anything about those changes!


Second approach:
I found it in this post but I did not tried by myself.

CreateIndex("Entitys", new string[2] { "FirstColumn", "SecondColumn" },
              true, "IX_Entitys");

The problem of this approach is the following: It needs DbMigration so what do you do if you don't have it?


Third approach:
I think this is the best one but it requires some time to do it. I will just show you the idea behind it: In this link http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/CSASPNETUniqueConstraintInE-d357224a you can find the code for unique key data annotation:

[UniqueKey] // Unique Key 
public int FirstColumn  { get; set;}
[UniqueKey] // Unique Key 
public int SecondColumn  { get; set;}

// The problem hier
1, 1  = OK 
1 ,2  = NO OK 1 IS UNIQUE

The problem for this approach; How can I combine them? I have an idea to extend this Microsoft implementation for example:

[UniqueKey, 1] // Unique Key 
public int FirstColumn  { get; set;}
[UniqueKey ,1] // Unique Key 
public int SecondColumn  { get; set;}

Later in the IDatabaseInitializer as described in the Microsoft example you can combine the keys according to the given integer. One thing has to be noted though: If the unique property is of type string then you have to set the MaxLength.

Bassam Alugili
  • 16,345
  • 7
  • 52
  • 70
  • 2
    (y) I find this answer better. Another thing, the third approach may not necessarily be the best. (I like the first one actually.) I personally prefer not having any EF artifacts carried over into my entity classes. – Najeeb Nov 11 '17 at 12:45
  • 1
    Possibly, second approach should be: `CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ix_{1}_{2} ON {0} ({1}, {2})`? (see [BOL](https://learn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/sql/t-sql/statements/create-index-transact-sql?view=sql-server-2017) ) – A K Oct 08 '18 at 12:35
  • 2
    Stupid question: Why so you start all your name by "IX_" ? – Bastien Vandamme Mar 18 '19 at 14:40
  • 1
    @BastienVandamme it is a good question. the auto generate index by EF begin with with IX_. It seem to be a convention in EF index by default, the index name will be IX_{property name}. – Bassam Alugili Mar 18 '19 at 14:47
  • 1
    Yes it should be. Thanks for the Fluent API implementation. There is a serious lack of documentation on this – JSON Jul 31 '19 at 15:56
77

If you're using Code-First, you can implement a custom extension HasUniqueIndexAnnotation

using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema;
using System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.Annotations;
using System.Data.Entity.ModelConfiguration.Configuration;

internal static class TypeConfigurationExtensions
{
    public static PrimitivePropertyConfiguration HasUniqueIndexAnnotation(
        this PrimitivePropertyConfiguration property, 
        string indexName,
        int columnOrder)
    {
        var indexAttribute = new IndexAttribute(indexName, columnOrder) { IsUnique = true };
        var indexAnnotation = new IndexAnnotation(indexAttribute);

        return property.HasColumnAnnotation(IndexAnnotation.AnnotationName, indexAnnotation);
    }
}

Then use it like so:

this.Property(t => t.Email)
    .HasColumnName("Email")
    .HasMaxLength(250)
    .IsRequired()
    .HasUniqueIndexAnnotation("UQ_User_EmailPerApplication", 0);

this.Property(t => t.ApplicationId)
    .HasColumnName("ApplicationId")
    .HasUniqueIndexAnnotation("UQ_User_EmailPerApplication", 1);

Which will result in this migration:

public override void Up()
{
    CreateIndex("dbo.User", new[] { "Email", "ApplicationId" }, unique: true, name: "UQ_User_EmailPerApplication");
}

public override void Down()
{
    DropIndex("dbo.User", "UQ_User_EmailPerApplication");
}

And eventually end up in database as:

CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [UQ_User_EmailPerApplication] ON [dbo].[User]
(
    [Email] ASC,
    [ApplicationId] ASC
)
TrueWill
  • 25,132
  • 10
  • 101
  • 150
niaher
  • 9,460
  • 7
  • 67
  • 86
  • 3
    But that is index not constraint! – Roman Pokrovskij Feb 01 '15 at 18:34
  • 3
    In your second code block (`this.Property(t => t.Email)`), what is that containing class? (ie: what is `this`) – JoeBrockhaus Jul 09 '15 at 18:08
  • 2
    nvm. `EntityTypeConfiguration` – JoeBrockhaus Jul 09 '15 at 18:20
  • 5
    @RomanPokrovskij: The difference between a unique index and a unique constraint appears to be a matter of how records of it are maintained in SQL Server. See https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa224827%28v=sql.80%29.aspx for details. – Mass Dot Net Dec 02 '15 at 21:15
  • 1
    @niaher I appreciate your nice extension method – Mohsen Afshin Mar 01 '16 at 07:50
  • 1
    I was able to build a multiple column index using this method, when one of the indexes was a foreign key, but I had to specifically include the foreign key in the business object using an attribute – Kirsten Jan 10 '17 at 03:31
  • 1
    I would like to underline that RomanPokrovskij has a point. All these approaches introduce a unique index NOT a unique constraint. It gets the job done in practical terms but if you strive for 100% "correctness" in the way your tables get declared you will have to manually tweak the auto-generated db-migration in order to have it introduce an actual CONSTRAINT [aka Sql("ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT etc")]. Just my 2c. – XDS Jun 18 '18 at 08:34
  • 1
    This may have been required at the time it was written. It is now (EF core 2.1) possible to do directly with the fluent API as I detail below – GilShalit Oct 16 '18 at 07:31
40

The answer from niaher stating that to use the fluent API you need a custom extension may have been correct at the time of writing. You can now (EF core 2.1) use the fluent API as follows:

modelBuilder.Entity<ClassName>()
            .HasIndex(a => new { a.Column1, a.Column2}).IsUnique();
GilShalit
  • 6,175
  • 9
  • 47
  • 68
  • 2
    doesn't work with navigation properties -> `System.InvalidOperationException: 'Organization' cannot be used as a property on entity type 'Association' because it is configured as a navigation..` – LIvanov Nov 26 '20 at 07:49
  • @LIvanov I found it easy to work around the issue by simply adding the navigation property identifier to the model. In my case it follows convention, so simply adding InstitutionId. Then `.HasIndex(x => new{ x.InstitutionId, x.ExternalId })` . Produces ```migrationBuilder.CreateIndex( name: "IX_Customers_InstitutionId_ExternalId", table: "Customers", columns: new[] { "InstitutionId", "ExternalId" }, unique: true);``` – Arthur Aug 05 '21 at 00:46
24

For those finding this looking for a 2021 solution, the working version of the accepted answer should now look like this:

[Index(nameof(FirstColumn), nameof(SecondColumn), IsUnique = true)]
public class Entity
 {
   [Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
   public string EntityId { get; set;}
   public int FirstColumn  { get; set;}
   public int SecondColumn  { get; set;}
 }

So that the annotation should live on the model and not the individual columns. Also note the nameof() syntax.

This answer was derived from the official documentation: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/modeling/indexes?tabs=data-annotations

fullStackChris
  • 1,300
  • 1
  • 12
  • 24
  • Another last thing: SQL (or in my case, PostgreSQL) will yell at you if you try to run the ef update command and you have existing rows in the modified table that are breaking this new index! (as one would expect) – fullStackChris Apr 16 '21 at 08:44
  • Just note that this answer applies to EF Core and is not available in EF6.x – Renier Jul 30 '21 at 03:57
  • 1
    Thanks, works on .net core and efcore 6 – Ron Michael Jun 19 '23 at 06:34
  • How diff is this from `[Index(nameof(FirstColumn), IsUnique = true), Index(nameof(SecondColumn), IsUnique = true)]`? – Kok How Teh Aug 23 '23 at 09:06
  • Been a while since I worked with EF Core, but my guess is that would mean both columns would be indexed seperatetly for uniqueness, and not _combined_ uniqueness. But maybe they are identical, try it! – fullStackChris Aug 26 '23 at 11:44
21

You need to define a composite key.

With data annotations it looks like this:

public class Entity
 {
   public string EntityId { get; set;}
   [Key]
   [Column(Order=0)]
   public int FirstColumn  { get; set;}
   [Key]
   [Column(Order=1)]
   public int SecondColumn  { get; set;}
 }

You can also do this with modelBuilder when overriding OnModelCreating by specifying:

modelBuilder.Entity<Entity>().HasKey(x => new { x.FirstColumn, x.SecondColumn });
Admir Tuzović
  • 10,997
  • 7
  • 35
  • 71
10

Completing @chuck answer for using composite indices with foreign keys.

You need to define a property that will hold the value of the foreign key. You can then use this property inside the index definition.

For example, we have company with employees and only we have a unique constraint on (name, company) for any employee:

class Company
{
    public Guid Id { get; set; }
}

class Employee
{
    public Guid Id { get; set; }
    [Required]
    public String Name { get; set; }
    public Company Company  { get; set; }
    [Required]
    public Guid CompanyId { get; set; }
}

Now the mapping of the Employee class:

class EmployeeMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Employee>
{
    public EmployeeMap ()
    {
        ToTable("Employee");

        Property(p => p.Id)
            .HasDatabaseGeneratedOption(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None);

        Property(p => p.Name)
            .HasUniqueIndexAnnotation("UK_Employee_Name_Company", 0);
        Property(p => p.CompanyId )
            .HasUniqueIndexAnnotation("UK_Employee_Name_Company", 1);
        HasRequired(p => p.Company)
            .WithMany()
            .HasForeignKey(p => p.CompanyId)
            .WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
    }
}

Note that I also used @niaher extension for unique index annotation.

Kryptos
  • 875
  • 8
  • 19
  • 1
    In this example you have both Company and CompanyId. This means the caller can change one but not the other and have an entity with incorrect data. – LosManos Mar 10 '17 at 10:23
  • 1
    @LosManos Which caller are you talking about? The class represents data in a database. Changing the value through queries will ensure consistency. Depending on your what the client application can do you might need to implement checks but that's not the scope of the OP. – Kryptos May 10 '17 at 09:17
5

In the accepted answer by @chuck, there is a comment saying it will not work in the case of FK.

it worked for me, case of EF6 .Net4.7.2

public class OnCallDay
{
     public int Id { get; set; }
    //[Key]
    [Index("IX_OnCallDateEmployee", 1, IsUnique = true)]
    public DateTime Date { get; set; }
    [ForeignKey("Employee")]
    [Index("IX_OnCallDateEmployee", 2, IsUnique = true)]
    public string EmployeeId { get; set; }
    public virtual ApplicationUser Employee{ get; set; }
}
dalios
  • 131
  • 1
  • 10
  • Long time. let say it has been work before long time! thank you for the update please add a comment to @chuck answer. I think Chuck is before long time does not use SO. – Bassam Alugili Dec 11 '19 at 13:48
  • 1
    Does the property EmployeeID Here need an attribute to limit its length for it to be indexed? Else its created with VARCHAR(MAX) which cannot have a index? Add Attribute [StringLength(255)] to EmployeeID – Lord Darth Vader Feb 24 '20 at 15:33
  • EmployeeID is a GUID. Many tutorial suggest to map the GUID to string instead of guid, I dont know why – dalios Feb 25 '20 at 20:11
3

I assume you always want EntityId to be the primary key, so replacing it by a composite key is not an option (if only because composite keys are far more complicated to work with and because it is not very sensible to have primary keys that also have meaning in the business logic).

The least you should do is create a unique key on both fields in the database and specifically check for unique key violation exceptions when saving changes.

Additionally you could (should) check for unique values before saving changes. The best way to do that is by an Any() query, because it minimizes the amount of transferred data:

if (context.Entities.Any(e => e.FirstColumn == value1 
                           && e.SecondColumn == value2))
{
    // deal with duplicate values here.
}

Beware that this check alone is never enough. There is always some latency between the check and the actual commit, so you'll always need the unique constraint + exception handling.

Gert Arnold
  • 105,341
  • 31
  • 202
  • 291
  • 3
    Thanks @GertArnold for the answer but I do not want to validate the uniqueness on the business layer this is a database job and this shall be done in the database! – Bassam Alugili Sep 19 '13 at 09:50
  • 2
    OK, stick to the unique index then. But you'll have to deal with index violations in the business layer anyhow. – Gert Arnold Sep 19 '13 at 09:56
  • 1
    from outside when I receive this kind of exception I will catched and than maybe reporting the error and break the process or shutdown the application. – Bassam Alugili Sep 19 '13 at 11:20
  • 3
    Yes, ... do I need to respond to that? Remember I know nothing of your application, I can't tell you what the best way is to deal with these exceptions, only _that_ you have to deal with them. – Gert Arnold Sep 19 '13 at 12:18
  • 2
    Be wary of DB unique constraints with EF. If you do this and then you wind up having an update that flip-flops the values of one of the columns that is part of the unique key, entity frameowkr will fail on the save unless you add a whole transaction layer. For instance: Page object has a child collection of Elements. Each element has SortOrder. You want combo of PageID and SortOrder to be unique. In front end, user flip flops order of elements with sortorder 1 and 2. Entity Framework will fail the save b/c it's trying to update sortorders one at a time. – EGP Jan 03 '14 at 21:32
3

Recently added a composite key with the uniqueness of 2 columns using the approach that 'chuck' recommended, thank @chuck. Only this approached looked cleaner to me:

public int groupId {get; set;}

[Index("IX_ClientGrouping", 1, IsUnique = true)]
public int ClientId { get; set; }

[Index("IX_ClientGrouping", 2, IsUnique = true)]
public int GroupName { get; set; }
Saeed
  • 3,294
  • 5
  • 35
  • 52
3

You should place Index attrib on top of the entity classs and define your multiple keys in string[]

[Index("FirstColumn", "SecondColumn", IsUnique = true, Name = "My_Unique_Index")]
public class Entity    

 {
   [Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
   public string EntityId { get; set;}
   public int FirstColumn  { get; set;}
   public int SecondColumn  { get; set;}
 }
akokani
  • 870
  • 8
  • 18
1

I wanted to add my answer since the provided solutions did not help me. In my case one of the columns was a foreign key reference.

Old model:

public class Matrix
{
    public int ID { get; set; }

    public MachineData MachineData { get; set; }

    public MachineVariant MachineVariant { get; set; }
}

Note that MachineVariant is an enum and MachineData is a reference.

Trying to use the provided solution by @Bassam Alugili:

modelBuilder.Entity<Matrix>()
   .HasIndex(sm => new { sm.MachineData, sm.DoughVariant }).IsUnique(true);

Didn't work. So I added an ID column for the machineData foreign key like so:

public class Matrix
{
    public int ID { get; set; }

    public MachineData MachineData { get; set; }

    [ForeignKey("MachineData")]
    public int MachineDataID { get; set; }

    public MachineVariant MachineVariant { get; set; }
}

And changed the modelbuilder code to this:

modelBuilder.Entity<Matrix>()
   .HasIndex(sm => new { sm.MachineDataID, sm.DoughVariant }).IsUnique(true);

Which resulted in the desired solution

RDAxRoadkill
  • 414
  • 5
  • 24