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。”
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
对我来说,如果您想要遵循ACID标准,那么拥有外键以确保引用完整性是至关重要的。
其他回答
我只知道Oracle数据库,不知道其他数据库,而且我知道外键对于保持数据完整性是必不可少的。在插入数据之前,需要建立一个数据结构,并且建立正确的数据结构。当这一步完成时——所有的主键和外键都创建好了——工作就完成了!
意思是:孤立的行?不。这辈子都没见过。除非一个糟糕的程序员忘记了外键,或者他在另一个层次上实现了外键。在Oracle的环境中,这两者都是巨大的错误,会导致数据复制、孤儿数据,从而导致数据损坏。我无法想象一个没有强制FK的数据库。在我看来是一片混乱。这有点像Unix权限系统:假设每个人都是root用户。想想混乱吧。
外键是必不可少的,就像主键一样。这就像是说:如果我们移除主键会怎样?那么,整个混乱将会发生。这是什么。不能将主键或外键的职责移到编程级别,但必须移到数据级别。
缺点呢?是的,当然!因为在插入时,会有更多的检查。但是,如果数据完整性比性能更重要,那么这是显而易见的。Oracle上的性能问题更多地与索引有关,索引包含PK和FK。
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.
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。
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。
“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.