Sql-server – Changing field length when foreign keys reference primary key field in table

The (lack of) documentation suggests that this behaviour is an implementation detail, and is therefore undefined and subject to change at any time.

This is in stark contrast to CREATE FULLTEXT INDEX, where you have to specify the name of an index to attach to -- AFAIK, there is no undocumented FOREIGN KEY syntax to do the equivalent (though theoretically, there could be in the future).

As mentioned, it does make sense that SQL Server chooses the smallest physical index with which to associate the foreign key. If you change the script to create the unique constraint as CLUSTERED, the script "works" on 2008 R2. But that behaviour is still undefined and should not be relied upon.

As with most legacy applications, you'll just have to get down to the nitty-gritty and clean things up.

The cost of using a simple synthetic integer PK is small, and the benefit in your case would probably be quite considerable.

• As you point out, you'll have a much simpler FK relationship.
• A small PK makes for small (and fast) indices. Your total table space will probably be made less by adding such a column.
• If business rules ever change, you won't have to reorder the table.

The only material downside that comes to mind is that you may lose performance on queries which benefited from clustering on the composite PK. If you think that's likely to be significant, than continue clustering on the composite candidate key, but put the PK on the synthetic key.