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。

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。

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)

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。

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。

我不得不在这里第二多的评论，外键是必要的项目，以确保你有完整的数据。ON DELETE和ON UPDATE的不同选项将允许你绕过一些人们在这里提到的关于它们的使用的“下降”。

我发现在我99%的项目中，我会使用FK来加强数据的完整性，然而，在很少的情况下，我的客户必须保留他们的旧数据，不管它有多糟糕....但后来我花了很多时间写代码，只得到有效的数据，所以它变得毫无意义。