我听到的观点是前端应该有这些业务规则。当您一开始就不应该允许任何破坏约束的插入时，外键会“增加不必要的开销”。我同意吗?不，但我一直都是这么听说的。

编辑:我猜他指的是外键约束，而不是外键这个概念。

外键对于任何关系数据库模型都是必不可少的。

我一直认为不用它们是懒惰的表现。我被教导应该一直这样做。但后来，我没有听乔尔的讨论。他也许有充分的理由，我不知道。

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)

这是一个教养问题。如果在您的教育或职业生涯中，您曾花时间维护数据库(或与有才华的人密切合作)，那么实体和关系的基本原则就会在您的思维过程中根深蒂固。这些基本知识包括如何/何时/为什么在数据库中指定键(主键、外键和备选键)。这是第二天性。

If, however, you've not had such a thorough or positive experience in your past with RDBMS-related endeavors, then you've likely not been exposed to such information. Or perhaps your past includes immersion in an environment that was vociferously anti-database (e.g., "those DBAs are idiots - we few, we chosen few java/c# code slingers will save the day"), in which case you might be vehemently opposed to the arcane babblings of some dweeb telling you that FKs (and the constraints they can imply) really are important if you'd just listen.

大多数人小时候都被教育刷牙很重要。没有它你能过吗?当然，但在某个时候，如果你每顿饭后都刷牙，那么你的牙齿就会减少。如果妈妈和爸爸们有足够的责任心，把数据库设计和口腔卫生都包括在内，我们就不会有这样的对话了。: -)

“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.