跨应用程序生命周期的可维护性和稳定性如何?大多数数据的生命周期都比使用它的应用程序长。关系和数据完整性非常重要，不能寄希望于下一个开发团队在应用程序代码中做出正确的处理。如果您没有使用过不尊重自然关系的脏数据的db，那么您将会使用。数据完整性的重要性将变得非常清楚。

“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)

在DB2中，如果使用mqt(物化查询表)，优化器需要外键约束才能为任何给定的查询选择正确的计划。由于元数据包含基数信息，优化器会大量使用元数据来决定是否使用MQT。

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。

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。: -)