我记得在播客014中听到Joel Spolsky提到他几乎从未使用过外键(如果我没记错的话)。然而,对我来说,它们对于避免数据库中的重复和后续数据完整性问题非常重要。
人们是否有一些可靠的理由(以避免与Stack Overflow原则一致的讨论)?
编辑:“我还没有创建外键的理由,所以这可能是我真正建立一个外键的第一个理由。”
我记得在播客014中听到Joel Spolsky提到他几乎从未使用过外键(如果我没记错的话)。然而,对我来说,它们对于避免数据库中的重复和后续数据完整性问题非常重要。
人们是否有一些可靠的理由(以避免与Stack Overflow原则一致的讨论)?
编辑:“我还没有创建外键的理由,所以这可能是我真正建立一个外键的第一个理由。”
当前回答
Wowowo... Answers everywhere. Actually this is the most complicated topic I have ever encountered. I use FKs when they are needed but on production environment I rarely use them. Here is my whys I rarely use the Fks: 1. Most of the time I am dealing with huge data on small server to improve performance I need to remove the FKs. Because when you have FKs and you do Create, Update or Delete the RDBMS first check if there no constraint violation and if you have huge DB that could be something fatal 2. Sometimes I need to import data from others places and because I am not too sure of how well structured they are, I simply drop the FKs. 3. In case you are dealing with multiple DBs and having reference key in an other DB will not go well(as for now) until you remove the FKs (cross database relations) 4. They was also a case when you write an application which will seat on whatever RDBMS or you want your DB to be exported and imported in any RDBMS system in this case each specific RDBMS system has his own way of dealing with FKs and you will probably be obliged to drop the use of FKs. 5. If you user RDBMS platform (ORMs) you know that some of them offer their own mapping depending on the solution and technicality their offer and you don't care about creating the tables and their FKs. 6. Before the last point will be knowledge to deal with DB that has FKs and the knowledge to write an application that does all the Job without the need of FK 7. Lastly as I started saying it all depend on your scenario, in case knowledge is not a barrier. You will always want to run the best of the best you can get!
谢谢大家!
其他回答
我同意前面的答案,因为它们对维护数据一致性很有用。然而,Jeff Atwood几周前发表了一篇有趣的文章,讨论了规范化和一致性数据的利弊。
简而言之,在处理大量数据时,非规范化数据库可以更快;你可能不关心精确的一致性取决于应用程序,但它迫使你在处理数据时更加小心,因为DB不会。
像许多事情一样,这是一种权衡。这是一个你想在哪里进行验证数据完整性的工作的问题:
(1)使用外键(单点配置为一个表,功能已经实现,经过测试,证明有效)
(2)把它留给数据库的用户(可能多个用户/应用程序更新同一个表),这意味着更多潜在的故障点和测试的复杂性)。
数据库执行(2)更有效,使用(1)更容易维护,风险更小。
验证外键约束需要一些CPU时间,因此有些人省略外键以获得额外的性能。
@ emphasis——这正是导致维护噩梦的心态。
为什么,哦,为什么要忽略声明性引用完整性(其中数据至少可以保证一致),而支持所谓的“软件强制”,这充其量是一种薄弱的预防措施。
跨应用程序生命周期的可维护性和稳定性如何?大多数数据的生命周期都比使用它的应用程序长。关系和数据完整性非常重要,不能寄希望于下一个开发团队在应用程序代码中做出正确的处理。如果您没有使用过不尊重自然关系的脏数据的db,那么您将会使用。数据完整性的重要性将变得非常清楚。