From my experience its always better to avoid using FKs in Database Critical Applications. I would not disagree with guys here who say FKs is a good practice but its not practical where the database is huge and has huge CRUD operations/sec. I can share without naming ... one of the biggest investment bank of doesn't have a single FK in databases. These constrains are handled by programmers while creating applications involving DB. The basic reason is when ever a new CRUD is done it has to effect multiple tables and verify for each inserts/updates, though this won't be a big issue for queries affecting single rows but it does create a huge latency when you deal with batch processing which any big bank has to do as daily tasks.

最好避免fk，但它的风险必须由程序员来处理。

有一个很好的理由不使用它们:如果你不了解它们的作用或如何使用它们。

在错误的情况下，外键约束可能导致事故的瀑布式复制。如果有人删除了错误的记录，恢复它可能会成为一项艰巨的任务。

同样，相反，当您需要删除某些内容时，如果设计不当，约束可能会导致各种锁阻止您的操作。

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。

“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.

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。

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。