验证外键约束需要一些CPU时间，因此有些人省略外键以获得额外的性能。

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。

澄清数据库是一个没有主键或外键的商业数据库示例。

http://www.geekinterview.com/question_details/18869

有趣的是，技术文档花了很大的篇幅来解释表是如何关联的，用什么列来连接它们等等。

换句话说，它们本可以使用显式声明(DRI)连接表，但它们选择不这样做。

因此，澄清数据库充满了不一致，性能不佳。

但我认为它使开发人员的工作更容易，不必编写代码来处理引用完整性，例如在删除或添加之前检查相关行。

我认为，这就是关系数据库中没有外键约束的主要好处。它使开发变得更容易，至少从不顾一切的角度来看是这样。

“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.

更新:我现在总是使用外键。对于反对意见“他们使测试变得复杂”，我的回答是“编写单元测试，这样他们就根本不需要数据库。任何使用该数据库的测试都应该正确地使用它，这包括外键。如果准备工作很痛苦，那就找一种不那么痛苦的方式来做。”

外键使自动化测试复杂化

假设您正在使用外键。您正在编写一个自动测试，该测试表示“当我更新财务帐户时，它应该保存交易记录。”在这个测试中，您只关心两个表:帐户和事务。

但是，accounts对契约有一个外键，契约对客户有一个fk，客户对城市有一个fk，城市对州有一个fk。

现在，数据库将不允许您运行测试，除非在四个与测试无关的表中设置数据。

至少有两种可能的观点:

“这是一件好事:你的测试应该是现实的，这些数据限制将存在于生产中。” “这是一件坏事:你应该能够在不涉及其他部分的情况下对系统的各个部分进行单元测试。您可以为整个系统添加集成测试。”

也可以在运行测试时暂时关闭外键检查。至少MySQL支持这一点。

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)