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!

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)

更新:我现在总是使用外键。对于反对意见“他们使测试变得复杂”，我的回答是“编写单元测试，这样他们就根本不需要数据库。任何使用该数据库的测试都应该正确地使用它，这包括外键。如果准备工作很痛苦，那就找一种不那么痛苦的方式来做。”

外键使自动化测试复杂化

假设您正在使用外键。您正在编写一个自动测试，该测试表示“当我更新财务帐户时，它应该保存交易记录。”在这个测试中，您只关心两个表:帐户和事务。

但是，accounts对契约有一个外键，契约对客户有一个fk，客户对城市有一个fk，城市对州有一个fk。

现在，数据库将不允许您运行测试，除非在四个与测试无关的表中设置数据。

至少有两种可能的观点:

“这是一件好事:你的测试应该是现实的，这些数据限制将存在于生产中。” “这是一件坏事:你应该能够在不涉及其他部分的情况下对系统的各个部分进行单元测试。您可以为整个系统添加集成测试。”

也可以在运行测试时暂时关闭外键检查。至少MySQL支持这一点。

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。

如果您绝对确信底层数据库系统将来不会改变，我将使用外键来确保数据完整性。

但在现实生活中，还有一个完全不使用外键的很好的理由:

您正在开发一个产品，该产品应该支持不同的数据库系统。

如果您正在使用实体框架(Entity Framework)，该框架能够连接到许多不同的数据库系统，那么您可能还希望支持“开源免费”的无服务器数据库。并非所有这些数据库都支持外键规则(更新、删除行……)。

这会导致不同的问题:

1)。在创建或更新数据库结构时，可能会遇到错误。可能只有无声错误，因为数据库系统忽略了外键。

2)。如果依赖于外键，则可能在业务逻辑中较少甚至不进行数据完整性检查。现在，如果新的数据库系统不支持这些外键规则，或者只是以不同的方式运行，那么您必须重写业务逻辑。

您可能会问:谁需要不同的数据库系统?当然，不是每个人都能负担得起或想要在他的机器上安装一个完整的SQL-Server。这是软件，需要维护。其他人已经在其他一些DB系统上投入了时间和金钱。无服务器数据库非常适合只有一台机器上的小客户。

没有人知道，所有这些DB系统是如何运行的，但是您的业务逻辑，包括完整性检查，总是保持不变的。

在我参与的一个项目中，经常存在隐式关系而不是显式关系，这样可以在同一列上连接多个表。

请看下面的表格

地址

AddressId (PK) EntityId EntityType 城市 状态 国家 等。

EntityType的值可能是Employee、Company、Customer, EntityId指的是您感兴趣的表的主键。

我真的不认为这是最好的方法，但它对这个项目有效。