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。: -)

我也听过这种说法——有些人忘记在外键上放索引，然后抱怨某些操作很慢(因为约束检查可以利用任何索引)。所以总结一下:没有好的理由不使用外键。所有现代数据库都支持级联删除，所以…

我同意德米特里的话，但要补充一点。

我在一个批处理计费系统中工作，需要在30多个表中插入大量的行。我们不允许做数据泵(Oracle)，所以我们必须做批量插入。这些表上有外键，但我们已经确保它们不会破坏任何关系。

在插入之前，我们禁用外键约束，这样Oracle就不会一直进行插入。插入成功后，我们重新启用约束。

PS:在一个大型数据库中，一条记录有许多外键和子行数据，有时外键可能不好，您可能希望禁止级联删除。对于在计费系统中的我们来说，如果进行级联删除，将花费太长时间，并且对数据库造成太大负担，因此我们只是在主驱动程序(父)表上使用一个字段将记录标记为坏记录。

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.

“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.

没有充分的理由不使用它们……除非孤行对你来说不是什么大问题。