我还认为外键在大多数数据库中是必要的。唯一的缺点(除了强制一致性带来的性能损失之外)是使用外键允许人们编写假定存在功能外键的代码。这绝不应该被允许。

例如，我看到有人编写了一些代码，将插入插入引用表中，然后尝试将插入插入引用表中，而不验证第一次插入是否成功。如果稍后删除外键，则会导致数据库不一致。

您也不能在更新或删除时假设特定的行为。无论是否存在外键，您仍然需要编写代码来执行您想要的操作。如果您假设删除是级联的，但实际上它们不是级联的，那么您的删除将失败。如果您假定对引用列的更新被传播到引用行，但实际上没有，那么您的更新将失败。出于编写代码的目的，最好不要使用这些特性。

如果打开了这些特性，那么您的代码无论如何都会模仿它们，并且会损失一些性能。

所以，总结....如果需要一致的数据库，外键是必不可少的。在您编写的代码中，永远不应假定外键存在或起作用。

这是一个教养问题。如果在您的教育或职业生涯中，您曾花时间维护数据库(或与有才华的人密切合作)，那么实体和关系的基本原则就会在您的思维过程中根深蒂固。这些基本知识包括如何/何时/为什么在数据库中指定键(主键、外键和备选键)。这是第二天性。

If, however, you've not had such a thorough or positive experience in your past with RDBMS-related endeavors, then you've likely not been exposed to such information. Or perhaps your past includes immersion in an environment that was vociferously anti-database (e.g., "those DBAs are idiots - we few, we chosen few java/c# code slingers will save the day"), in which case you might be vehemently opposed to the arcane babblings of some dweeb telling you that FKs (and the constraints they can imply) really are important if you'd just listen.

大多数人小时候都被教育刷牙很重要。没有它你能过吗?当然，但在某个时候，如果你每顿饭后都刷牙，那么你的牙齿就会减少。如果妈妈和爸爸们有足够的责任心，把数据库设计和口腔卫生都包括在内，我们就不会有这样的对话了。: -)

使用外键的原因:

you won't get Orphaned Rows you can get nice "on delete cascade" behavior, automatically cleaning up tables knowing about the relationships between tables in the database helps the Optimizer plan your queries for most efficient execution, since it is able to get better estimates on join cardinality. FKs give a pretty big hint on what statistics are most important to collect on the database, which in turn leads to better performance they enable all kinds of auto-generated support -- ORMs can generate themselves, visualization tools will be able to create nice schema layouts for you, etc. someone new to the project will get into the flow of things faster since otherwise implicit relationships are explicitly documented

不使用外键的原因:

you are making the DB work extra on every CRUD operation because it has to check FK consistency. This can be a big cost if you have a lot of churn by enforcing relationships, FKs specify an order in which you have to add/delete things, which can lead to refusal by the DB to do what you want. (Granted, in such cases, what you are trying to do is create an Orphaned Row, and that's not usually a good thing). This is especially painful when you are doing large batch updates, and you load up one table before another, with the second table creating consistent state (but should you be doing that sort of thing if there is a possibility that the second load fails and your database is now inconsistent?). sometimes you know beforehand your data is going to be dirty, you accept that, and you want the DB to accept it you are just being lazy :-)

我认为(我不确定!)大多数已建立的数据库都提供了一种指定外键的方法，这种方法不是强制的，只是一些元数据。由于不强制执行消除了不使用fk的所有理由，如果第二部分中的任何理由适用，您可能应该走那条路。

@ 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。

外键对于任何关系数据库模型都是必不可少的。

“在添加记录之前，检查对应的记录是否存在于另一个表中”是业务逻辑。

这里有一些你不希望在数据库中使用它的原因:

If the business rules change, you have to change the database. The database will need to recreate the index in a lot of cases and this is slow on large tables. (Changing rules include: allow guests to post messages or allow users to delete their account despite having posted comments, etc). Changing the database is not as easy as deploying a software fix by pushing the changes to the production repository. We want to avoid changing the database structure as much as possible. The more business logic there is in the database the more you increase the chances of needing to change the databae (and triggering re-indexing). TDD. In unit tests you can substitute the database for mocks and test the functionality. If you have any business logic in your database, you are not doing complete tests and would need to either test with the database or replicate the business logic in code for testing purposes, duplicating the logic and increasing the likelyhood of the logic not working in the same way. Reusing your logic with different data sources. If there is no logic in the database, my application can create objects from records from the database, create them from a web service, a json file or any other source. I just need to swap out the data mapper implementation and can use all my business logic with any source. If there is logic in the database, this isn't possible and you have to implement the logic at the data mapper layer or in the business logic. Either way, you need those checks in your code. If there's no logic in the database I can deploy the application in different locations using different database or flat-file implementations.