更大的问题是:你会戴着眼罩开车吗?如果你开发一个没有参考约束的系统就是这样。请记住，业务需求会改变，应用程序设计会改变，代码中相应的逻辑假设也会改变，逻辑本身也会被重构，等等。一般来说，数据库中的约束是在当代逻辑假设下放置的，对于特定的逻辑断言和假设集似乎是正确的。

在应用程序的整个生命周期中，引用检查和数据检查约束控制通过应用程序收集的数据，特别是当新需求驱动逻辑应用程序更改时。

从实时事务处理系统的角度来看，外键本身不会“提高性能”，也不会显著“降低性能”。然而，在大容量“批处理”系统中，约束检查存在一个聚合代价。这就是实时和批量事务处理的区别;批处理——通过约束检查，按顺序处理的批处理的总成本会对性能造成影响。

在一个设计良好的系统中，数据一致性检查将在处理批处理之前完成(然而，这里也有相关的成本);因此，加载时不需要外键约束检查。事实上，所有的约束，包括外键，都应该暂时禁用，直到批处理完成。

QUERY性能——如果表是在外键上连接的，那么要认识到外键列不是索引的事实(尽管根据定义，各自的主键是索引的)。通过索引一个外键，也就是索引任何键，在索引上连接表有助于提高性能，而不是通过连接一个带外键约束的非索引键。

Changing subjects, if a database is just supporting website display/rendering content/etc and recording clicks, then a database with full constraints on all tables is over kill for such purposes. Think about it. Most websites don’t even use a database for such. For similar requirements, where data is just being recorded and not referenced per say, use an in-memory database, which does not have constraints. This doesn’t mean that there is no data model, yes logical model, but no physical data model.

我同意德米特里的回答，说得很好。

For those who are worried about the performance overhead FK's often bring, there's a way (in Oracle) you can get the query optimiser advantage of the FK constraint without the cost overhead of constraint validation during insert, delete or update. That is to create the FK constraint with the attributes RELY DISABLE NOVALIDATE. This means the query optimiser ASSUMES that the constraint has been enforced when building queries, without the database actually enforcing the constraint. You have to be very careful here to take the responsibility when you populate a table with an FK constraint like this to make absolutely sure you don't have data in your FK column(s) that violate the constraint, as if you do so you could get unreliable results from queries that involve the table this FK constraint is on.

我通常在数据集市模式中的某些表上使用这种策略，但在集成登台模式中不使用。我要确保复制数据的表已经强制执行了相同的约束，或者ETL例程强制执行了该约束。

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.

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。