数据结构设计的一个好的原则是确保表或对象的每个属性都服从于一个很好理解的约束。这很重要，因为如果您或您的程序可以依赖数据库中的有效数据，那么就不太可能出现由坏数据引起的程序缺陷。您还可以花费更少的时间来编写处理错误条件的代码，并且更有可能预先编写错误处理代码。

在许多情况下，这些约束可以在编译时定义，在这种情况下，您可以编写一个筛选器来确保属性总是在范围内，或者尝试保存属性失败。

然而，在许多情况下，这些约束可以在运行时更改。例如，您可能有一个“cars”表，其属性为“colour”，初始值为“red”、“green”和“blue”。在程序执行期间，可以将有效的颜色添加到初始列表中，并且添加的新“汽车”可以采用最新颜色列表中的任何颜色。此外，您通常希望这个更新的颜色列表在程序重新启动后仍然有效。

To answer your question, it turns out that if you have a requirement for data constraint that can change at run-time, and those changes must survive a program restart, foreign keys are the simplest and most concise solution to the problem. The development cost is the addition of one table (e.g. "colours", a foreign key constraint to the "cars" table, and an index), and the run-time cost is the extra table lookup for the up-to-date colours to validate the data, and this run-time cost is usually mitigated by indexing and caching.

如果您不使用外键来满足这些需求，那么您必须编写软件来管理列表、查找有效的条目、将其保存到磁盘、如果列表很大的话有效地组织数据、确保对列表的任何更新都不会破坏列表文件、在有多个读取器和/或写入器的情况下提供对列表的串行访问，等等。例如，你需要实现大量的RDBMS功能。

“它们会使删除记录变得更加麻烦——你不能删除“主”记录，而其他表中的记录中有外键会违反这种约束。”

重要的是要记住，SQL标准定义了删除或更新外键时所采取的操作。 我所知道的是:

ON DELETE RESTRICT - Prevents any rows in the other table that have keys in this column from being deleted. This is what Ken Ray described above. ON DELETE CASCADE - If a row in the other table is deleted, delete any rows in this table that reference it. ON DELETE SET DEFAULT - If a row in the other table is deleted, set any foreign keys referencing it to the column's default. ON DELETE SET NULL - If a row in the other table is deleted, set any foreign keys referencing it in this table to null. ON DELETE NO ACTION - This foreign key only marks that it is a foreign key; namely for use in OR mappers.

这些相同的操作也适用于ON UPDATE。

默认值似乎取决于您使用的sql server。

我同意德米特里的回答，说得很好。

For those who are worried about the performance overhead FK's often bring, there's a way (in Oracle) you can get the query optimiser advantage of the FK constraint without the cost overhead of constraint validation during insert, delete or update. That is to create the FK constraint with the attributes RELY DISABLE NOVALIDATE. This means the query optimiser ASSUMES that the constraint has been enforced when building queries, without the database actually enforcing the constraint. You have to be very careful here to take the responsibility when you populate a table with an FK constraint like this to make absolutely sure you don't have data in your FK column(s) that violate the constraint, as if you do so you could get unreliable results from queries that involve the table this FK constraint is on.

我通常在数据集市模式中的某些表上使用这种策略，但在集成登台模式中不使用。我要确保复制数据的表已经强制执行了相同的约束，或者ETL例程强制执行了该约束。

我也听过这种说法——有些人忘记在外键上放索引，然后抱怨某些操作很慢(因为约束检查可以利用任何索引)。所以总结一下:没有好的理由不使用外键。所有现代数据库都支持级联删除，所以…

数据结构设计的一个好的原则是确保表或对象的每个属性都服从于一个很好理解的约束。这很重要，因为如果您或您的程序可以依赖数据库中的有效数据，那么就不太可能出现由坏数据引起的程序缺陷。您还可以花费更少的时间来编写处理错误条件的代码，并且更有可能预先编写错误处理代码。

在许多情况下，这些约束可以在编译时定义，在这种情况下，您可以编写一个筛选器来确保属性总是在范围内，或者尝试保存属性失败。

然而，在许多情况下，这些约束可以在运行时更改。例如，您可能有一个“cars”表，其属性为“colour”，初始值为“red”、“green”和“blue”。在程序执行期间，可以将有效的颜色添加到初始列表中，并且添加的新“汽车”可以采用最新颜色列表中的任何颜色。此外，您通常希望这个更新的颜色列表在程序重新启动后仍然有效。

To answer your question, it turns out that if you have a requirement for data constraint that can change at run-time, and those changes must survive a program restart, foreign keys are the simplest and most concise solution to the problem. The development cost is the addition of one table (e.g. "colours", a foreign key constraint to the "cars" table, and an index), and the run-time cost is the extra table lookup for the up-to-date colours to validate the data, and this run-time cost is usually mitigated by indexing and caching.

如果您不使用外键来满足这些需求，那么您必须编写软件来管理列表、查找有效的条目、将其保存到磁盘、如果列表很大的话有效地组织数据、确保对列表的任何更新都不会破坏列表文件、在有多个读取器和/或写入器的情况下提供对列表的串行访问，等等。例如，你需要实现大量的RDBMS功能。

One time when an FK might cause you a problem is when you have historical data that references the key (in a lookup table) even though you no longer want the key available. Obviously the solution is to design things better up front, but I am thinking of real world situations here where you don't always have control of the full solution. For example: perhaps you have a look up table customer_type that lists different types of customers - lets say you need to remove a certain customer type, but (due to business restraints) aren't able to update the client software, and nobody invisaged this situation when developing the software, the fact that it is a foreign key in some other table may prevent you from removing the row even though you know the historical data that references it is irrelevant. After being burnt with this a few times you probably lean away from db enforcement of relationships. (I'm not saying this is good - just giving a reason why you may decide to avoid FKs and db contraints in general)