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。

没有充分的理由不使用它们……除非孤行对你来说不是什么大问题。

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。

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。

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)

@ 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。