@ 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。

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)

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。

在这里回答问题的许多人都过于关注通过引用约束实现的引用完整性的重要性。在具有引用完整性的大型数据库上工作性能不佳。Oracle似乎特别不擅长级联删除。我的经验法则是，应用程序永远不应该直接更新数据库，而应该通过存储过程更新。这将代码库保存在数据库中，并意味着数据库保持其完整性。

在许多应用程序可能正在访问数据库的地方，由于引用完整性约束确实会出现问题，但这取决于控件。

还有一个更广泛的问题，应用程序开发人员可能有非常不同的需求，而数据库开发人员可能并不那么熟悉。

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。

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。