我记得在播客014中听到Joel Spolsky提到他几乎从未使用过外键(如果我没记错的话)。然而,对我来说,它们对于避免数据库中的重复和后续数据完整性问题非常重要。

人们是否有一些可靠的理由(以避免与Stack Overflow原则一致的讨论)?

编辑:“我还没有创建外键的理由,所以这可能是我真正建立一个外键的第一个理由。”


当前回答

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。

其他回答

使用外键的原因:

you won't get Orphaned Rows you can get nice "on delete cascade" behavior, automatically cleaning up tables knowing about the relationships between tables in the database helps the Optimizer plan your queries for most efficient execution, since it is able to get better estimates on join cardinality. FKs give a pretty big hint on what statistics are most important to collect on the database, which in turn leads to better performance they enable all kinds of auto-generated support -- ORMs can generate themselves, visualization tools will be able to create nice schema layouts for you, etc. someone new to the project will get into the flow of things faster since otherwise implicit relationships are explicitly documented

不使用外键的原因:

you are making the DB work extra on every CRUD operation because it has to check FK consistency. This can be a big cost if you have a lot of churn by enforcing relationships, FKs specify an order in which you have to add/delete things, which can lead to refusal by the DB to do what you want. (Granted, in such cases, what you are trying to do is create an Orphaned Row, and that's not usually a good thing). This is especially painful when you are doing large batch updates, and you load up one table before another, with the second table creating consistent state (but should you be doing that sort of thing if there is a possibility that the second load fails and your database is now inconsistent?). sometimes you know beforehand your data is going to be dirty, you accept that, and you want the DB to accept it you are just being lazy :-)

我认为(我不确定!)大多数已建立的数据库都提供了一种指定外键的方法,这种方法不是强制的,只是一些元数据。由于不强制执行消除了不使用fk的所有理由,如果第二部分中的任何理由适用,您可能应该走那条路。

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。: -)

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。

“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.