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。

我听到的观点是前端应该有这些业务规则。当您一开始就不应该允许任何破坏约束的插入时，外键会“增加不必要的开销”。我同意吗?不，但我一直都是这么听说的。

编辑:我猜他指的是外键约束，而不是外键这个概念。

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。

这是一个教养问题。如果在您的教育或职业生涯中，您曾花时间维护数据库(或与有才华的人密切合作)，那么实体和关系的基本原则就会在您的思维过程中根深蒂固。这些基本知识包括如何/何时/为什么在数据库中指定键(主键、外键和备选键)。这是第二天性。

If, however, you've not had such a thorough or positive experience in your past with RDBMS-related endeavors, then you've likely not been exposed to such information. Or perhaps your past includes immersion in an environment that was vociferously anti-database (e.g., "those DBAs are idiots - we few, we chosen few java/c# code slingers will save the day"), in which case you might be vehemently opposed to the arcane babblings of some dweeb telling you that FKs (and the constraints they can imply) really are important if you'd just listen.

大多数人小时候都被教育刷牙很重要。没有它你能过吗?当然，但在某个时候，如果你每顿饭后都刷牙，那么你的牙齿就会减少。如果妈妈和爸爸们有足够的责任心，把数据库设计和口腔卫生都包括在内，我们就不会有这样的对话了。: -)

如果您绝对确信底层数据库系统将来不会改变，我将使用外键来确保数据完整性。

但在现实生活中，还有一个完全不使用外键的很好的理由:

您正在开发一个产品，该产品应该支持不同的数据库系统。

如果您正在使用实体框架(Entity Framework)，该框架能够连接到许多不同的数据库系统，那么您可能还希望支持“开源免费”的无服务器数据库。并非所有这些数据库都支持外键规则(更新、删除行……)。

这会导致不同的问题:

1)。在创建或更新数据库结构时，可能会遇到错误。可能只有无声错误，因为数据库系统忽略了外键。

2)。如果依赖于外键，则可能在业务逻辑中较少甚至不进行数据完整性检查。现在，如果新的数据库系统不支持这些外键规则，或者只是以不同的方式运行，那么您必须重写业务逻辑。

您可能会问:谁需要不同的数据库系统?当然，不是每个人都能负担得起或想要在他的机器上安装一个完整的SQL-Server。这是软件，需要维护。其他人已经在其他一些DB系统上投入了时间和金钱。无服务器数据库非常适合只有一台机器上的小客户。

没有人知道，所有这些DB系统是如何运行的，但是您的业务逻辑，包括完整性检查，总是保持不变的。