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
它们会使删除记录变得更加麻烦——当其他表中存在外键违反约束的记录时,您就不能删除“主”记录。可以使用触发器进行级联删除。
如果不明智地选择主键,则更改该值将变得更加复杂。例如,如果我有我的“客户”表的PK作为人的名字,并使该键在“订单”表中为FK,如果客户想更改他的名字,那么这是一个巨大的痛苦……但这只是粗制滥造的数据库设计。
我相信使用火密钥的优点大于任何假定的缺点。
其他回答
使用外键的原因:
you won't get Orphaned Rows you can get nice "on delete cascade" behavior, automatically cleaning up tables knowing about the relationships between tables in the database helps the Optimizer plan your queries for most efficient execution, since it is able to get better estimates on join cardinality. FKs give a pretty big hint on what statistics are most important to collect on the database, which in turn leads to better performance they enable all kinds of auto-generated support -- ORMs can generate themselves, visualization tools will be able to create nice schema layouts for you, etc. someone new to the project will get into the flow of things faster since otherwise implicit relationships are explicitly documented
不使用外键的原因:
you are making the DB work extra on every CRUD operation because it has to check FK consistency. This can be a big cost if you have a lot of churn by enforcing relationships, FKs specify an order in which you have to add/delete things, which can lead to refusal by the DB to do what you want. (Granted, in such cases, what you are trying to do is create an Orphaned Row, and that's not usually a good thing). This is especially painful when you are doing large batch updates, and you load up one table before another, with the second table creating consistent state (but should you be doing that sort of thing if there is a possibility that the second load fails and your database is now inconsistent?). sometimes you know beforehand your data is going to be dirty, you accept that, and you want the DB to accept it you are just being lazy :-)
我认为(我不确定!)大多数已建立的数据库都提供了一种指定外键的方法,这种方法不是强制的,只是一些元数据。由于不强制执行消除了不使用fk的所有理由,如果第二部分中的任何理由适用,您可能应该走那条路。
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。
“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。
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。