有一个很好的理由不使用它们:如果你不了解它们的作用或如何使用它们。

在错误的情况下，外键约束可能导致事故的瀑布式复制。如果有人删除了错误的记录，恢复它可能会成为一项艰巨的任务。

同样，相反，当您需要删除某些内容时，如果设计不当，约束可能会导致各种锁阻止您的操作。

我只知道Oracle数据库，不知道其他数据库，而且我知道外键对于保持数据完整性是必不可少的。在插入数据之前，需要建立一个数据结构，并且建立正确的数据结构。当这一步完成时——所有的主键和外键都创建好了——工作就完成了!

意思是:孤立的行?不。这辈子都没见过。除非一个糟糕的程序员忘记了外键，或者他在另一个层次上实现了外键。在Oracle的环境中，这两者都是巨大的错误，会导致数据复制、孤儿数据，从而导致数据损坏。我无法想象一个没有强制FK的数据库。在我看来是一片混乱。这有点像Unix权限系统:假设每个人都是root用户。想想混乱吧。

外键是必不可少的，就像主键一样。这就像是说:如果我们移除主键会怎样?那么，整个混乱将会发生。这是什么。不能将主键或外键的职责移到编程级别，但必须移到数据级别。

缺点呢?是的，当然!因为在插入时，会有更多的检查。但是，如果数据完整性比性能更重要，那么这是显而易见的。Oracle上的性能问题更多地与索引有关，索引包含PK和FK。

Quite often we receive the errors with FK constraints Cannot add or update a child row: a foreign key constraint fails Suppose there are two tables inventory_source and contract_lines, and we are referring inventory_source_id in contract_lines from inventory_source and suppose we want to delete record from inventory_source and the record is already present in contract_lines or we want to delete the PK column from Base table, we get errors for FK constraints, we can avoid it using the steps jotted below.

CREATE TABLE inventory_source (
inventory_source_id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
display_name varchar(40) NOT NULL,
state_id int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (inventory_source_id),
KEY state_id (state_id),
CONSTRAINT ba_inventory_source_state_fk FOREIGN KEY (state_id) REFERENCES   ba_state (state_id)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=3 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

CREATE TABLE contract_lines(
contract_line_id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
inventory_source_id int(11) NULL ,
PRIMARY KEY (contract_line_id),
UNIQUE KEY contract_line_id (contract_line_id),
KEY AI_contract_line_id (contract_line_id),
KEY contract_lines_inventory_source_fk (inventory_source_id),
CONSTRAINT contract_lines_inventory_source_fk FOREIGN KEY       (inventory_source_id) REFERENCES ba_inventory_source (inventory_source_id)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=135 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 ;

我们可以采用以下步骤克服它:-

Delete or update the row from the inventory_source will automatically delete or update the matching rows in the contract_lines table and this is known as cascade delete or update. Another way of doing it is setting the column i.e inventory_source_id in the contract_lines table to NULL, when a record corresponding to it is deleted in the inventory_source table. We can restrict the parent table for delete or update in other words one can reject the delete or update operation for the inventory_source table. Attempt to delete or update a primary key value will not be permitted to proceed if there is a related foreign key value in the referenced table.

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。

我经常使用它们，但后来我为金融系统制作数据库。数据库是应用程序的关键部分。如果金融数据库中的数据不是完全准确的，那么无论你在代码/前端设计上投入多少精力都没有意义。你只是在浪费时间。

还有一个事实是，多个系统通常需要直接与数据库接口-从其他系统只是读取数据(Crystal Reports)到系统插入数据(不一定使用我设计的API;它可能是由一个刚刚发现VBScript并拥有SQL框SA密码的愚蠢的经理编写的)。如果数据库不能像白痴一样证明它可能是，好吧，再见数据库。

如果您的数据很重要，那么可以使用外键，创建一套存储过程来与数据交互，并创建最强大的DB。如果您的数据不重要，那么为什么要开始创建数据库呢?

“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.