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。

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。

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!

在DB2中，如果使用mqt(物化查询表)，优化器需要外键约束才能为任何给定的查询选择正确的计划。由于元数据包含基数信息，优化器会大量使用元数据来决定是否使用MQT。

@ 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。

更大的问题是:你会戴着眼罩开车吗?如果你开发一个没有参考约束的系统就是这样。请记住，业务需求会改变，应用程序设计会改变，代码中相应的逻辑假设也会改变，逻辑本身也会被重构，等等。一般来说，数据库中的约束是在当代逻辑假设下放置的，对于特定的逻辑断言和假设集似乎是正确的。

在应用程序的整个生命周期中，引用检查和数据检查约束控制通过应用程序收集的数据，特别是当新需求驱动逻辑应用程序更改时。

从实时事务处理系统的角度来看，外键本身不会“提高性能”，也不会显著“降低性能”。然而，在大容量“批处理”系统中，约束检查存在一个聚合代价。这就是实时和批量事务处理的区别;批处理——通过约束检查，按顺序处理的批处理的总成本会对性能造成影响。

在一个设计良好的系统中，数据一致性检查将在处理批处理之前完成(然而，这里也有相关的成本);因此，加载时不需要外键约束检查。事实上，所有的约束，包括外键，都应该暂时禁用，直到批处理完成。

QUERY性能——如果表是在外键上连接的，那么要认识到外键列不是索引的事实(尽管根据定义，各自的主键是索引的)。通过索引一个外键，也就是索引任何键，在索引上连接表有助于提高性能，而不是通过连接一个带外键约束的非索引键。

Changing subjects, if a database is just supporting website display/rendering content/etc and recording clicks, then a database with full constraints on all tables is over kill for such purposes. Think about it. Most websites don’t even use a database for such. For similar requirements, where data is just being recorded and not referenced per say, use an in-memory database, which does not have constraints. This doesn’t mean that there is no data model, yes logical model, but no physical data model.