“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。

它们会使删除记录变得更加麻烦——当其他表中存在外键违反约束的记录时，您就不能删除“主”记录。可以使用触发器进行级联删除。

如果不明智地选择主键，则更改该值将变得更加复杂。例如，如果我有我的“客户”表的PK作为人的名字，并使该键在“订单”表中为FK，如果客户想更改他的名字，那么这是一个巨大的痛苦……但这只是粗制滥造的数据库设计。

我相信使用火密钥的优点大于任何假定的缺点。

我同意德米特里的话，但要补充一点。

我在一个批处理计费系统中工作，需要在30多个表中插入大量的行。我们不允许做数据泵(Oracle)，所以我们必须做批量插入。这些表上有外键，但我们已经确保它们不会破坏任何关系。

在插入之前，我们禁用外键约束，这样Oracle就不会一直进行插入。插入成功后，我们重新启用约束。

PS:在一个大型数据库中，一条记录有许多外键和子行数据，有时外键可能不好，您可能希望禁止级联删除。对于在计费系统中的我们来说，如果进行级联删除，将花费太长时间，并且对数据库造成太大负担，因此我们只是在主驱动程序(父)表上使用一个字段将记录标记为坏记录。

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!

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。

From my experience its always better to avoid using FKs in Database Critical Applications. I would not disagree with guys here who say FKs is a good practice but its not practical where the database is huge and has huge CRUD operations/sec. I can share without naming ... one of the biggest investment bank of doesn't have a single FK in databases. These constrains are handled by programmers while creating applications involving DB. The basic reason is when ever a new CRUD is done it has to effect multiple tables and verify for each inserts/updates, though this won't be a big issue for queries affecting single rows but it does create a huge latency when you deal with batch processing which any big bank has to do as daily tasks.

最好避免fk，但它的风险必须由程序员来处理。