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。

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。

“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.

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。

像许多事情一样，这是一种权衡。这是一个你想在哪里进行验证数据完整性的工作的问题:

(1)使用外键(单点配置为一个表，功能已经实现，经过测试，证明有效)

(2)把它留给数据库的用户(可能多个用户/应用程序更新同一个表)，这意味着更多潜在的故障点和测试的复杂性)。

数据库执行(2)更有效，使用(1)更容易维护，风险更小。

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。