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.

使用外键的其他原因: —可以更好地重用数据库

不使用外键的其他原因: —您试图通过减少重用来锁定客户。

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。

数据结构设计的一个好的原则是确保表或对象的每个属性都服从于一个很好理解的约束。这很重要，因为如果您或您的程序可以依赖数据库中的有效数据，那么就不太可能出现由坏数据引起的程序缺陷。您还可以花费更少的时间来编写处理错误条件的代码，并且更有可能预先编写错误处理代码。

在许多情况下，这些约束可以在编译时定义，在这种情况下，您可以编写一个筛选器来确保属性总是在范围内，或者尝试保存属性失败。

然而，在许多情况下，这些约束可以在运行时更改。例如，您可能有一个“cars”表，其属性为“colour”，初始值为“red”、“green”和“blue”。在程序执行期间，可以将有效的颜色添加到初始列表中，并且添加的新“汽车”可以采用最新颜色列表中的任何颜色。此外，您通常希望这个更新的颜色列表在程序重新启动后仍然有效。

To answer your question, it turns out that if you have a requirement for data constraint that can change at run-time, and those changes must survive a program restart, foreign keys are the simplest and most concise solution to the problem. The development cost is the addition of one table (e.g. "colours", a foreign key constraint to the "cars" table, and an index), and the run-time cost is the extra table lookup for the up-to-date colours to validate the data, and this run-time cost is usually mitigated by indexing and caching.

如果您不使用外键来满足这些需求，那么您必须编写软件来管理列表、查找有效的条目、将其保存到磁盘、如果列表很大的话有效地组织数据、确保对列表的任何更新都不会破坏列表文件、在有多个读取器和/或写入器的情况下提供对列表的串行访问，等等。例如，你需要实现大量的RDBMS功能。

“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.

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)