What s wrong with foreign keys

Question

I remember hearing Joel Spolsky mention in podcast 014 that he d barely ever used a foreign key  if I remember correctly   However  to me they seem pretty vital to avoid duplication and subsequent data integrity problems throughout your database   Do people have some solid reasons as to why  to avoid a discussion in lines with Stack Overflow principles    Edit   I ve yet to have a reason to create a foreign key  so this might be my first reason to actually set up one

User · Answer

The argument I have heard is that the front-end should have these business rules. Foreign keys "add unnecessary overhead" when you shouldn't be allowing any insertions that break your constraints in the first place. Do I agree with this? No, but that is what I have always heard.

EDIT: My guess is he was referring to foreign key constraints, not foreign keys as a concept.

User · Answer

This is an issue of upbringing   If somewhere in your educational or professional career you spent time feeding and caring for databases  or worked closely with talented folks who did   then the fundamental tenets of entities and relationships are well-ingrained in your thought process   Among those rudiments is how when why to specify keys in your database  primary  foreign and perhaps alternate    It s second nature   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   Most everyone was taught when they were kids that brushing your teeth was important   Can you get by without it   Sure  but somewhere down the line you ll have less teeth available than you could have if you had brushed after every meal   If moms and dads were responsible enough to cover database design as well as oral hygiene  we wouldn t be having this conversation   -

User · Answer

Update  I always use foreign keys now  My answer to the objection  they complicated testing  is  write your unit tests so they don t need the database at all  Any tests that use the database should use it properly  and that includes foreign keys  If the setup is painful  find a less painful way to do the setup      Foreign keys complicate automated testing  Suppose you re using foreign keys  You re writing an automated test that says  when I update a financial account  it should save a record of the transaction   In this test  you re only concerned with two tables  accounts and transactions   However  accounts has a foreign key to contracts  and contracts has a fk to clients  and clients has a fk to cities  and cities has a fk to states   Now the database will not allow you to run your test without setting up data in four tables that aren t related to your test   There are at least two possible perspectives on this     That s a good thing  your test should be realistic  and those data constraints will exist in production    That s a bad thing  you should be able to unit test pieces of the system without involving other pieces  You can add integration tests for the system as a whole     It may also be possible to temporarily turn off foreign key checks while running tests  MySQL  at least  supports this

User · Answer

Reasons to use Foreign Keys    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   Reasons not to use Foreign Keys    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  -    I think  I am not certain   that most established databases provide a way to specify a foreign key that is not enforced  and is simply a bit of metadata   Since non-enforcement wipes out every reason not to use FKs  you should probably go that route if any of the reasons in the second section apply

User · Answer

I also think that foreign keys are a necessity in most databases   The only drawback  besides the performance hit that comes with having enforced consistence  is that having a foreign key allows people to write code that assumes there is a functional foreign key   That should never be allowed   For example  I ve seen people write code that inserts into the referenced table and then attempts inserts into the referencing table without verifying the first insert was successful   If the foreign key is removed at a later time  that results in an inconsistent database   You also don t have the option of assuming a specific behavior on update or delete   You still need to write your code to do what you want regardless of whether there is a foreign key present   If you assume deletes are cascaded when they are not  your deletes will fail   If you assume updates to the referenced columns are propogated to the referencing rows when they are not  your updates will fail   For the purposes of writing code  you might as well not have those features   If those features are turned on  then your code will emulate them anyway and you ll lose a little performance   So  the summary      Foreign keys are essential if you need a consistent database   Foreign keys should never be assumed to be present or functional in code that you write

User · Answer

Bigger question is  would you drive with a blindfold on  That   s how it is if you develop a system without referential constraints  Keep in mind  that business requirements change  application design changes  respective logical assumptions in the code changes  logic itself can be refactored  and so on  In general  constraints in databases are put in place under contemporary logical assumptions  seemingly correct for particular set of logical assertions and assumptions    Through the lifecycle of an application  referential and data checks constraints police data collection via the application  especially when new requirements drive logical application changes   To the subject of this listing - a foreign key does not by itself  improve performance   nor does it  degrade performance  significantly from a standpoint of real-time transaction processing system  However  there is an aggregated cost for constraint checking in HIGH volume  batch  system  So  here is the difference  real-time vs  batch transaction process  batch processing - where aggreated cost  incured by constraint checks  of a sequentially processed batch poses a performance hit   In a well designed system  data consistency checks would be done  before  processing a batch through  nevertheless  there is a cost associated here also   therefore  foreign key constraint checks are not required during load time  In fact all constraints  including foreign key  should be temporarily disabled till the batch is processed   QUERY PERFORMANCE - if tables are joined on foreign keys  be cognizant of the fact that foreign key columns are NOT INDEXED  though the respective primary key is indexed by definition   By indexing a foreign key  for that matter  by indexing any key  and joining tables on indexed helps with better performances  not by joining on non-indexed key with foreign key constraint on it   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

User · Answer

If you are absolutey sure  that the one underlying database system will not change in the future  I would use foreign keys to ensure data integrity   But here is another very good real-life reason not to use foreign keys at all   You are developing a product  which should support different database systems    If you are working with the Entity Framework  which is able to connect to many different database systems  you may also want to support  open-source-free-of-charge  serverless databases  Not all of these databases may support your foreign key rules  updating  deleting rows         This can lead to different problems   1   You may run into errors  when the database structure is created or updated  Maybe there will only be silent errors  because your foreign keys are just ignored by the database system   2   If you rely on foreign keys  you will propably make less or even no data integrity checks in your business logic  Now  if the new database system does not support these foreign key rules or just behaves in a different way  you have to rewrite your business logic   You may ask  Who needs different database systems  Well  not everybody can afford or wants a full blown SQL-Server on his machine  This is software  which needs to be maintained  Others already have invested time and money in some other DB system  Serverless database are great for small customers on only one machine    Nobody knows  how all of these DB systems behave  but your business logic  with integrity checks  always stays the same

User · Answer

Like many things  it s a tradeoff   It s a question of where you want to do the work to verify the data integrity    1  use a foreign key  a single point to configure for a table  feature is already implemented  tested  proven to work    2  leave it to the users of the database  possible multiple users apps updating the same table  s  meaning more potential points of failure and increased complexity in testing    It s more efficient for the database to do  2   easier to maintain and less risk with  1

User · Answer

imphasing - this is exactly the kind of mindset that causes maintenance nightmares   Why oh why would you ignore declarative referential integrity  where the data can be guaranteed to be at least consistent  in favour of so called  software enforcement  which is a weak preventative measure at best

User · Answer

I know only Oracle databases  no other ones  and I can tell that Foreign Keys are essential for maintaining data integrity  Prior to inserting data  a data structure needs to be made  and be made correctlty  When that is done - and thus all primary AND foreign keys are created - the work is done    Meaning   orphaned rows   No  Never seen that in my life  Unless a bad programmer forgot the foreign key  or if he implemented that on another level  Both are - in context of Oracle - huge mistakes  which will lead to data duplication  orphan data  and thus   data corruption  I can t imagine a database without FK enforced  It looks like chaos to me  It s a bit like the Unix permission system   imagine that everybody is root  Think of the chaos   Foreign Keys are essential  just like Primary Keys  It s like saying   what if we removing Primary Keys   Well  total chaos is going to happen  That s what  You may not move the primary or foreign key responsibility to the programming level  it must be at the data level   Drawbacks   Yes  absolutely   Because on insert  a lot more checks are going to be happening  But  if data integrity is more important than performance  it s a no-brainer  The problem with performance on Oracle is more related to indexes  which come with PK and FK s

User · Answer

I have heard this argument too - from people who forgot to put an index on their foreign keys and then complained that certain operations were slow  because constraint checking could take advantage of any index   So to sum up  There is no good reason not to use foreign keys  All modern databases support cascaded deletes  so

User · Answer

How about maintainability and constancy across application life cycles   Most data has a longer lifespan than the applications that make use of it   Relationships and data integrity are much too important to leave to the hope that the next dev team gets it right in the app code   If you haven t worked on a db with dirty data that doesn t respect the natural relationships  you will   The importance of data integrity will then become very clear

User · Answer

imphasing - this is exactly the kind of mindset that causes maintenance nightmares   Why oh why would you ignore declarative referential integrity  where the data can be guaranteed to be at least consistent  in favour of so called  software enforcement  which is a weak preventative measure at best

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint   You can use triggers to have cascading deletes   If you chose your primary key unwisely  then changing that value becomes even more complex   For example  if I have the PK of my  customers  table as the person s name  and make that key a FK in the  orders  table   if the customer wants to change his name  then it is a royal pain     but that is just shoddy database design   I believe the advantages in using fireign keys outweighs any supposed disadvantages

User · Answer

I always use them  but then I make databases for financial systems   The database is the critical part of the application   If the data in a financial database isn t totally accurate then it really doesn t matter how much effort you put into your code front-end design   You re just wasting your time   There s also the fact that multiple systems generally need to interface directly with the database - from other systems that just read data out  Crystal Reports  to systems that insert data  not necessarily using an API I ve designed  it may be written by a dull-witted manager who has just discovered VBScript and has the SA password for the SQL box    If the database isn t as idiot-proof as it can possibly be  well - bye bye database   If your data is important  then yes  use foreign keys  create a suite of stored procedures to interact with the data  and make the toughest DB you can   If your data isn t important  why are you making a database to begin with

User · Answer

One good principle of data structure design is to ensure that every attribute of a table or object be subject to a well-understood constraint  This is important because if you or your program can count on valid data in the database  you are less likely to have program defects caused by bad data  You also spend less time writing code to handle error conditions  and you are more likely to write error-handling code up front    In many cases these constraints can be defined at compile-time  in which case you can write a filter to ensure that the attribute always falls within range  or the attempt to save the attribute fails    However  in many cases these constraints can change at run-time  For example  you may have a  cars  table that has  colour  as an attribute which initially takes on the values  say  of  red    green  and  blue   It is possible during the execution of the program to add valid colours to that initial list  and new  cars  added may take on any colour in the up-to-date list of colours  Furthermore  you usually want this updated list of colours to survive a program restart    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    If you don t use foreign keys for these requirements  you must write software to manage the list  look valid entries  save it to disk  structure the data efficiently if the list is large  ensure that any updates to the list don t corrupt the list file  provide serial access to the list in case there are multiple readers and or writers  and so on  i e  You need to implement a lot of RDBMS functionality

User · Answer

Before adding a record  check that a corresponding record exists in another table   is business logic    Here are some reasons you don t want this in the database     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

User · Answer

Foreign keys are essential to any relational database model

User · Answer

I also think that foreign keys are a necessity in most databases   The only drawback  besides the performance hit that comes with having enforced consistence  is that having a foreign key allows people to write code that assumes there is a functional foreign key   That should never be allowed   For example  I ve seen people write code that inserts into the referenced table and then attempts inserts into the referencing table without verifying the first insert was successful   If the foreign key is removed at a later time  that results in an inconsistent database   You also don t have the option of assuming a specific behavior on update or delete   You still need to write your code to do what you want regardless of whether there is a foreign key present   If you assume deletes are cascaded when they are not  your deletes will fail   If you assume updates to the referenced columns are propogated to the referencing rows when they are not  your updates will fail   For the purposes of writing code  you might as well not have those features   If those features are turned on  then your code will emulate them anyway and you ll lose a little performance   So  the summary      Foreign keys are essential if you need a consistent database   Foreign keys should never be assumed to be present or functional in code that you write

User · Answer

Additional Reason to use Foreign Keys  - Allows greater reuse of a database  Additional Reason to NOT use Foreign Keys  - You are trying to lock-in a customer into your tool by reducing reuse

User · Answer

imphasing - this is exactly the kind of mindset that causes maintenance nightmares   Why oh why would you ignore declarative referential integrity  where the data can be guaranteed to be at least consistent  in favour of so called  software enforcement  which is a weak preventative measure at best

User · Answer

Wowowo    Answers everywhere  Actually this is the most complicated topic I have ever encountered  I use FKs when they are needed but on production environment I rarely use them   Here is my whys I rarely use the Fks   1  Most of the time I am dealing with huge data on small server to improve performance I need to remove the FKs  Because when you have FKs and you do Create  Update or Delete the RDBMS first check if there no constraint violation and if you have huge DB that could be something fatal  2  Sometimes I need to import data from others places and because I am not too sure of how well structured they are  I simply drop the FKs   3  In case you are dealing with multiple DBs and having reference key in an other DB will not go well as for now  until you remove the FKs  cross database relations   4  They was also a case when you write an application which will seat on whatever RDBMS or you want your DB to be exported and imported in any RDBMS system in this case each specific RDBMS system has his own way of dealing with FKs and you will probably be obliged to drop the use of FKs   5  If you user RDBMS platform  ORMs  you know that some of them offer their own mapping depending on the solution and technicality their offer and you don t care about creating the tables and their FKs   6  Before the last point will be knowledge to deal with DB that has FKs and the knowledge to write an application that does all the Job without the need of FK  7  Lastly as I started saying it all depend on your scenario  in case knowledge is not a barrier  You will always want to run the best of the best you can get   Thank you everybody

User · Answer

Additional Reason to use Foreign Keys  - Allows greater reuse of a database  Additional Reason to NOT use Foreign Keys  - You are trying to lock-in a customer into your tool by reducing reuse

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint   You can use triggers to have cascading deletes   If you chose your primary key unwisely  then changing that value becomes even more complex   For example  if I have the PK of my  customers  table as the person s name  and make that key a FK in the  orders  table   if the customer wants to change his name  then it is a royal pain     but that is just shoddy database design   I believe the advantages in using fireign keys outweighs any supposed disadvantages

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint    It s important to remember that the SQL standard defines actions that are taken when a foreign key is deleted or updated  The ones I know of are    ON DELETE RESTRICT - Prevents any rows in the other table that have keys in this column from being deleted   This is what Ken Ray described above  ON DELETE CASCADE - If a row in the other table is deleted  delete any rows in this table that reference it  ON DELETE SET DEFAULT - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it to the column s default  ON DELETE SET NULL - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it in this table to null  ON DELETE NO ACTION - This foreign key only marks that it is a foreign key  namely for use in OR mappers    These same actions also apply to ON UPDATE   The default seems to depend on which sql server you re using

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint    It s important to remember that the SQL standard defines actions that are taken when a foreign key is deleted or updated  The ones I know of are    ON DELETE RESTRICT - Prevents any rows in the other table that have keys in this column from being deleted   This is what Ken Ray described above  ON DELETE CASCADE - If a row in the other table is deleted  delete any rows in this table that reference it  ON DELETE SET DEFAULT - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it to the column s default  ON DELETE SET NULL - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it in this table to null  ON DELETE NO ACTION - This foreign key only marks that it is a foreign key  namely for use in OR mappers    These same actions also apply to ON UPDATE   The default seems to depend on which sql server you re using

User · Answer

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

User · Answer

Update  I always use foreign keys now  My answer to the objection  they complicated testing  is  write your unit tests so they don t need the database at all  Any tests that use the database should use it properly  and that includes foreign keys  If the setup is painful  find a less painful way to do the setup      Foreign keys complicate automated testing  Suppose you re using foreign keys  You re writing an automated test that says  when I update a financial account  it should save a record of the transaction   In this test  you re only concerned with two tables  accounts and transactions   However  accounts has a foreign key to contracts  and contracts has a fk to clients  and clients has a fk to cities  and cities has a fk to states   Now the database will not allow you to run your test without setting up data in four tables that aren t related to your test   There are at least two possible perspectives on this     That s a good thing  your test should be realistic  and those data constraints will exist in production    That s a bad thing  you should be able to unit test pieces of the system without involving other pieces  You can add integration tests for the system as a whole     It may also be possible to temporarily turn off foreign key checks while running tests  MySQL  at least  supports this

User · Answer

The argument I have heard is that the front-end should have these business rules. Foreign keys "add unnecessary overhead" when you shouldn't be allowing any insertions that break your constraints in the first place. Do I agree with this? No, but that is what I have always heard.

EDIT: My guess is he was referring to foreign key constraints, not foreign keys as a concept.

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint    It s important to remember that the SQL standard defines actions that are taken when a foreign key is deleted or updated  The ones I know of are    ON DELETE RESTRICT - Prevents any rows in the other table that have keys in this column from being deleted   This is what Ken Ray described above  ON DELETE CASCADE - If a row in the other table is deleted  delete any rows in this table that reference it  ON DELETE SET DEFAULT - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it to the column s default  ON DELETE SET NULL - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it in this table to null  ON DELETE NO ACTION - This foreign key only marks that it is a foreign key  namely for use in OR mappers    These same actions also apply to ON UPDATE   The default seems to depend on which sql server you re using

User · Answer

The Clarify database is an example of a commercial database that has no primary or foreign keys   http   www geekinterview com question details 18869  The funny thing is  the technical documentation goes to great lengths to explain how tables are related  what columns to use to join them etc     In other words  they could have joined the tables with explicit declarations  DRI  but they chose not to   Consequently  the Clarify database is full of inconsistencies and it underperforms   But I suppose it made the developers job easier  not having to write code to deal with referential integrity such as checking for related rows before deleting  adding   And that  I think  is the main benefit of not having foreign key constraints in a relational database   It makes it easier to develop  at least that is from a devil-may-care point of view

User · Answer

The Clarify database is an example of a commercial database that has no primary or foreign keys   http   www geekinterview com question details 18869  The funny thing is  the technical documentation goes to great lengths to explain how tables are related  what columns to use to join them etc     In other words  they could have joined the tables with explicit declarations  DRI  but they chose not to   Consequently  the Clarify database is full of inconsistencies and it underperforms   But I suppose it made the developers job easier  not having to write code to deal with referential integrity such as checking for related rows before deleting  adding   And that  I think  is the main benefit of not having foreign key constraints in a relational database   It makes it easier to develop  at least that is from a devil-may-care point of view

User · Answer

One good principle of data structure design is to ensure that every attribute of a table or object be subject to a well-understood constraint  This is important because if you or your program can count on valid data in the database  you are less likely to have program defects caused by bad data  You also spend less time writing code to handle error conditions  and you are more likely to write error-handling code up front    In many cases these constraints can be defined at compile-time  in which case you can write a filter to ensure that the attribute always falls within range  or the attempt to save the attribute fails    However  in many cases these constraints can change at run-time  For example  you may have a  cars  table that has  colour  as an attribute which initially takes on the values  say  of  red    green  and  blue   It is possible during the execution of the program to add valid colours to that initial list  and new  cars  added may take on any colour in the up-to-date list of colours  Furthermore  you usually want this updated list of colours to survive a program restart    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    If you don t use foreign keys for these requirements  you must write software to manage the list  look valid entries  save it to disk  structure the data efficiently if the list is large  ensure that any updates to the list don t corrupt the list file  provide serial access to the list in case there are multiple readers and or writers  and so on  i e  You need to implement a lot of RDBMS functionality

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint   You can use triggers to have cascading deletes   If you chose your primary key unwisely  then changing that value becomes even more complex   For example  if I have the PK of my  customers  table as the person s name  and make that key a FK in the  orders  table   if the customer wants to change his name  then it is a royal pain     but that is just shoddy database design   I believe the advantages in using fireign keys outweighs any supposed disadvantages

User · Answer

Foreign keys are essential to any relational database model

User · Answer

I ll echo what Dmitriy said  but adding on a point   I worked on a batch billing system that needed to insert large sets of rows on 30  tables   We weren t allowed to do a data pump  Oracle  so we had to do bulk inserts   Those tables had foreign keys on them  but we had already ensured that they were not breaking any relationships   Before insert  we disable the foreign key constraints so that Oracle doesn t take forever doing the inserts   After the insert is successful  we re-enable the constraints   PS  In a large database with many foreign keys and child row data for a single record  sometimes foreign keys can be bad  and you may want to disallow cascading deletes   For us in the billing system  it would take too long and be too taxing on the database if we did cascading deletes  so we just mark the record as bad with a field on the main driver  parent  table

User · Answer

Additional Reason to use Foreign Keys  - Allows greater reuse of a database  Additional Reason to NOT use Foreign Keys  - You are trying to lock-in a customer into your tool by reducing reuse

User · Answer

I always thought it was lazy not to use them  I was taught it should always be done  But then  I didnt listen to Joel s discussion  He may have had a good reason  I don t know

User · Answer

I also think that foreign keys are a necessity in most databases   The only drawback  besides the performance hit that comes with having enforced consistence  is that having a foreign key allows people to write code that assumes there is a functional foreign key   That should never be allowed   For example  I ve seen people write code that inserts into the referenced table and then attempts inserts into the referencing table without verifying the first insert was successful   If the foreign key is removed at a later time  that results in an inconsistent database   You also don t have the option of assuming a specific behavior on update or delete   You still need to write your code to do what you want regardless of whether there is a foreign key present   If you assume deletes are cascaded when they are not  your deletes will fail   If you assume updates to the referenced columns are propogated to the referencing rows when they are not  your updates will fail   For the purposes of writing code  you might as well not have those features   If those features are turned on  then your code will emulate them anyway and you ll lose a little performance   So  the summary      Foreign keys are essential if you need a consistent database   Foreign keys should never be assumed to be present or functional in code that you write

User · Answer

If you are absolutey sure  that the one underlying database system will not change in the future  I would use foreign keys to ensure data integrity   But here is another very good real-life reason not to use foreign keys at all   You are developing a product  which should support different database systems    If you are working with the Entity Framework  which is able to connect to many different database systems  you may also want to support  open-source-free-of-charge  serverless databases  Not all of these databases may support your foreign key rules  updating  deleting rows         This can lead to different problems   1   You may run into errors  when the database structure is created or updated  Maybe there will only be silent errors  because your foreign keys are just ignored by the database system   2   If you rely on foreign keys  you will propably make less or even no data integrity checks in your business logic  Now  if the new database system does not support these foreign key rules or just behaves in a different way  you have to rewrite your business logic   You may ask  Who needs different database systems  Well  not everybody can afford or wants a full blown SQL-Server on his machine  This is software  which needs to be maintained  Others already have invested time and money in some other DB system  Serverless database are great for small customers on only one machine    Nobody knows  how all of these DB systems behave  but your business logic  with integrity checks  always stays the same

User · Answer

Additional Reason to use Foreign Keys  - Allows greater reuse of a database  Additional Reason to NOT use Foreign Keys  - You are trying to lock-in a customer into your tool by reducing reuse

User · Answer

To me  if you want to go by the ACID standards  it is critical to have foreign keys to ensure referential integrity

User · Answer

I have to second most of the comments here  Foreign Keys are necessary items to ensure that you have data with integrity   The different options for ON DELETE and ON UPDATE will allow you to get around some of the  down falls  that people mention here regarding their use   I find that in 99  of all my projects I will have FK s to enforce the integrity of the data  however  there are those rare occasions where I have clients that MUST keep their old data  regardless of how bad it is    but then I spend a lot of time writing code that goes in to only get the valid data anyway  so it becomes pointless

User · Answer

I always thought it was lazy not to use them  I was taught it should always be done  But then  I didnt listen to Joel s discussion  He may have had a good reason  I don t know

User · Answer

I echo the answer by Dmitriy - very well put   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   I usually use this strategy on some tables in my data mart schema  but not in my integrated staging schema  I make sure the tables I am copying data from already have the same constraint enforced  or the ETL routine enforces the constraint

User · Answer

Foreign keys are essential to any relational database model

User · Answer

This is an issue of upbringing   If somewhere in your educational or professional career you spent time feeding and caring for databases  or worked closely with talented folks who did   then the fundamental tenets of entities and relationships are well-ingrained in your thought process   Among those rudiments is how when why to specify keys in your database  primary  foreign and perhaps alternate    It s second nature   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   Most everyone was taught when they were kids that brushing your teeth was important   Can you get by without it   Sure  but somewhere down the line you ll have less teeth available than you could have if you had brushed after every meal   If moms and dads were responsible enough to cover database design as well as oral hygiene  we wouldn t be having this conversation   -

User · Answer

Many of the people answering here get too hung up on the importance of referential integrity implemented via referential constraints  Working on large databases with referential integrity just does not perform well  Oracle seems particularly bad at cascading deletes  My rule of thumb is that applications should never update the database directly and should be via a stored procedure  This keeps the code base inside the database  and means that the database maintains its integrity   Where many applications may be accessing the database  problems do arise because of referential integrity constraints but this is down to a control   There is a wider issue too in that  application developers may have very different requirements that database developers may not necessarily be that familiar with

User · Answer

How about maintainability and constancy across application life cycles   Most data has a longer lifespan than the applications that make use of it   Relationships and data integrity are much too important to leave to the hope that the next dev team gets it right in the app code   If you haven t worked on a db with dirty data that doesn t respect the natural relationships  you will   The importance of data integrity will then become very clear

User · Answer

I also think that foreign keys are a necessity in most databases   The only drawback  besides the performance hit that comes with having enforced consistence  is that having a foreign key allows people to write code that assumes there is a functional foreign key   That should never be allowed   For example  I ve seen people write code that inserts into the referenced table and then attempts inserts into the referencing table without verifying the first insert was successful   If the foreign key is removed at a later time  that results in an inconsistent database   You also don t have the option of assuming a specific behavior on update or delete   You still need to write your code to do what you want regardless of whether there is a foreign key present   If you assume deletes are cascaded when they are not  your deletes will fail   If you assume updates to the referenced columns are propogated to the referencing rows when they are not  your updates will fail   For the purposes of writing code  you might as well not have those features   If those features are turned on  then your code will emulate them anyway and you ll lose a little performance   So  the summary      Foreign keys are essential if you need a consistent database   Foreign keys should never be assumed to be present or functional in code that you write

User · Answer

I always use them  but then I make databases for financial systems   The database is the critical part of the application   If the data in a financial database isn t totally accurate then it really doesn t matter how much effort you put into your code front-end design   You re just wasting your time   There s also the fact that multiple systems generally need to interface directly with the database - from other systems that just read data out  Crystal Reports  to systems that insert data  not necessarily using an API I ve designed  it may be written by a dull-witted manager who has just discovered VBScript and has the SA password for the SQL box    If the database isn t as idiot-proof as it can possibly be  well - bye bye database   If your data is important  then yes  use foreign keys  create a suite of stored procedures to interact with the data  and make the toughest DB you can   If your data isn t important  why are you making a database to begin with

User · Answer

Bigger question is  would you drive with a blindfold on  That   s how it is if you develop a system without referential constraints  Keep in mind  that business requirements change  application design changes  respective logical assumptions in the code changes  logic itself can be refactored  and so on  In general  constraints in databases are put in place under contemporary logical assumptions  seemingly correct for particular set of logical assertions and assumptions    Through the lifecycle of an application  referential and data checks constraints police data collection via the application  especially when new requirements drive logical application changes   To the subject of this listing - a foreign key does not by itself  improve performance   nor does it  degrade performance  significantly from a standpoint of real-time transaction processing system  However  there is an aggregated cost for constraint checking in HIGH volume  batch  system  So  here is the difference  real-time vs  batch transaction process  batch processing - where aggreated cost  incured by constraint checks  of a sequentially processed batch poses a performance hit   In a well designed system  data consistency checks would be done  before  processing a batch through  nevertheless  there is a cost associated here also   therefore  foreign key constraint checks are not required during load time  In fact all constraints  including foreign key  should be temporarily disabled till the batch is processed   QUERY PERFORMANCE - if tables are joined on foreign keys  be cognizant of the fact that foreign key columns are NOT INDEXED  though the respective primary key is indexed by definition   By indexing a foreign key  for that matter  by indexing any key  and joining tables on indexed helps with better performances  not by joining on non-indexed key with foreign key constraint on it   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

User · Answer

I ll echo what Dmitriy said  but adding on a point   I worked on a batch billing system that needed to insert large sets of rows on 30  tables   We weren t allowed to do a data pump  Oracle  so we had to do bulk inserts   Those tables had foreign keys on them  but we had already ensured that they were not breaking any relationships   Before insert  we disable the foreign key constraints so that Oracle doesn t take forever doing the inserts   After the insert is successful  we re-enable the constraints   PS  In a large database with many foreign keys and child row data for a single record  sometimes foreign keys can be bad  and you may want to disallow cascading deletes   For us in the billing system  it would take too long and be too taxing on the database if we did cascading deletes  so we just mark the record as bad with a field on the main driver  parent  table

User · Answer

I m sure there are plenty of applications where you can get away with it  but it s not the best idea   You can t always count on your application to properly manage your database  and frankly managing the database should not be of very much concern to your application     If you are using a relational database then it seems you ought to have some relationships defined in it   Unfortunately this attitude  you don t need foreign keys  seems to be embraced by a lot of application developers who would rather not be bothered with silly things like data integrity  but need to because their companies don t have dedicated database developers    Usually in databases put together by these types you are lucky just to have primary keys

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint    It s important to remember that the SQL standard defines actions that are taken when a foreign key is deleted or updated  The ones I know of are    ON DELETE RESTRICT - Prevents any rows in the other table that have keys in this column from being deleted   This is what Ken Ray described above  ON DELETE CASCADE - If a row in the other table is deleted  delete any rows in this table that reference it  ON DELETE SET DEFAULT - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it to the column s default  ON DELETE SET NULL - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it in this table to null  ON DELETE NO ACTION - This foreign key only marks that it is a foreign key  namely for use in OR mappers    These same actions also apply to ON UPDATE   The default seems to depend on which sql server you re using

User · Answer

Foreign keys are essential to any relational database model

User · Answer

Foreign keys are essential to any relational database model

User · Answer

I can see a few reasons to use foreign keys  Orphaned rows  as someone mentioned  are annoying  but I never use them either  With a relatively sane DB schema  I don t think they are 100  needed  Constraints are good  but enforcing them via software is a better method  I think   Alex

User · Answer

I can see a few reasons to use foreign keys  Orphaned rows  as someone mentioned  are annoying  but I never use them either  With a relatively sane DB schema  I don t think they are 100  needed  Constraints are good  but enforcing them via software is a better method  I think   Alex

User · Answer

imphasing - this is exactly the kind of mindset that causes maintenance nightmares   Why oh why would you ignore declarative referential integrity  where the data can be guaranteed to be at least consistent  in favour of so called  software enforcement  which is a weak preventative measure at best

User · Answer

Like many things  it s a tradeoff   It s a question of where you want to do the work to verify the data integrity    1  use a foreign key  a single point to configure for a table  feature is already implemented  tested  proven to work    2  leave it to the users of the database  possible multiple users apps updating the same table  s  meaning more potential points of failure and increased complexity in testing    It s more efficient for the database to do  2   easier to maintain and less risk with  1

User · Answer

I have to second most of the comments here  Foreign Keys are necessary items to ensure that you have data with integrity   The different options for ON DELETE and ON UPDATE will allow you to get around some of the  down falls  that people mention here regarding their use   I find that in 99  of all my projects I will have FK s to enforce the integrity of the data  however  there are those rare occasions where I have clients that MUST keep their old data  regardless of how bad it is    but then I spend a lot of time writing code that goes in to only get the valid data anyway  so it becomes pointless

User · Answer

The Clarify database is an example of a commercial database that has no primary or foreign keys   http   www geekinterview com question details 18869  The funny thing is  the technical documentation goes to great lengths to explain how tables are related  what columns to use to join them etc     In other words  they could have joined the tables with explicit declarations  DRI  but they chose not to   Consequently  the Clarify database is full of inconsistencies and it underperforms   But I suppose it made the developers job easier  not having to write code to deal with referential integrity such as checking for related rows before deleting  adding   And that  I think  is the main benefit of not having foreign key constraints in a relational database   It makes it easier to develop  at least that is from a devil-may-care point of view

User · Answer

The argument I have heard is that the front-end should have these business rules. Foreign keys "add unnecessary overhead" when you shouldn't be allowing any insertions that break your constraints in the first place. Do I agree with this? No, but that is what I have always heard.

EDIT: My guess is he was referring to foreign key constraints, not foreign keys as a concept.

User · Answer

I always thought it was lazy not to use them  I was taught it should always be done  But then  I didnt listen to Joel s discussion  He may have had a good reason  I don t know

User · Answer

I echo the answer by Dmitriy - very well put   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   I usually use this strategy on some tables in my data mart schema  but not in my integrated staging schema  I make sure the tables I am copying data from already have the same constraint enforced  or the ETL routine enforces the constraint

User · Answer

The Clarify database is an example of a commercial database that has no primary or foreign keys   http   www geekinterview com question details 18869  The funny thing is  the technical documentation goes to great lengths to explain how tables are related  what columns to use to join them etc     In other words  they could have joined the tables with explicit declarations  DRI  but they chose not to   Consequently  the Clarify database is full of inconsistencies and it underperforms   But I suppose it made the developers job easier  not having to write code to deal with referential integrity such as checking for related rows before deleting  adding   And that  I think  is the main benefit of not having foreign key constraints in a relational database   It makes it easier to develop  at least that is from a devil-may-care point of view

User · Answer

There s one good reason not to use them     If you don t understand their role or how to use them   In the wrong situations  foreign key constraints can lead to waterfall replication of accidents  If somebody removes the wrong record  undoing it can become a mammoth task     Also  conversely  when you need to remove something  if poorly designed  constraints can cause all sorts of locks that prevent you

User · Answer

I ll echo what Dmitriy said  but adding on a point   I worked on a batch billing system that needed to insert large sets of rows on 30  tables   We weren t allowed to do a data pump  Oracle  so we had to do bulk inserts   Those tables had foreign keys on them  but we had already ensured that they were not breaking any relationships   Before insert  we disable the foreign key constraints so that Oracle doesn t take forever doing the inserts   After the insert is successful  we re-enable the constraints   PS  In a large database with many foreign keys and child row data for a single record  sometimes foreign keys can be bad  and you may want to disallow cascading deletes   For us in the billing system  it would take too long and be too taxing on the database if we did cascading deletes  so we just mark the record as bad with a field on the main driver  parent  table

User · Answer

If you are absolutey sure  that the one underlying database system will not change in the future  I would use foreign keys to ensure data integrity   But here is another very good real-life reason not to use foreign keys at all   You are developing a product  which should support different database systems    If you are working with the Entity Framework  which is able to connect to many different database systems  you may also want to support  open-source-free-of-charge  serverless databases  Not all of these databases may support your foreign key rules  updating  deleting rows         This can lead to different problems   1   You may run into errors  when the database structure is created or updated  Maybe there will only be silent errors  because your foreign keys are just ignored by the database system   2   If you rely on foreign keys  you will propably make less or even no data integrity checks in your business logic  Now  if the new database system does not support these foreign key rules or just behaves in a different way  you have to rewrite your business logic   You may ask  Who needs different database systems  Well  not everybody can afford or wants a full blown SQL-Server on his machine  This is software  which needs to be maintained  Others already have invested time and money in some other DB system  Serverless database are great for small customers on only one machine    Nobody knows  how all of these DB systems behave  but your business logic  with integrity checks  always stays the same

User · Answer

To me  if you want to go by the ACID standards  it is critical to have foreign keys to ensure referential integrity

User · Answer

I can see a few reasons to use foreign keys  Orphaned rows  as someone mentioned  are annoying  but I never use them either  With a relatively sane DB schema  I don t think they are 100  needed  Constraints are good  but enforcing them via software is a better method  I think   Alex

User · Answer

I m sure there are plenty of applications where you can get away with it  but it s not the best idea   You can t always count on your application to properly manage your database  and frankly managing the database should not be of very much concern to your application     If you are using a relational database then it seems you ought to have some relationships defined in it   Unfortunately this attitude  you don t need foreign keys  seems to be embraced by a lot of application developers who would rather not be bothered with silly things like data integrity  but need to because their companies don t have dedicated database developers    Usually in databases put together by these types you are lucky just to have primary keys

User · Answer

The Clarify database is an example of a commercial database that has no primary or foreign keys   http   www geekinterview com question details 18869  The funny thing is  the technical documentation goes to great lengths to explain how tables are related  what columns to use to join them etc     In other words  they could have joined the tables with explicit declarations  DRI  but they chose not to   Consequently  the Clarify database is full of inconsistencies and it underperforms   But I suppose it made the developers job easier  not having to write code to deal with referential integrity such as checking for related rows before deleting  adding   And that  I think  is the main benefit of not having foreign key constraints in a relational database   It makes it easier to develop  at least that is from a devil-may-care point of view

User · Answer

There s one good reason not to use them     If you don t understand their role or how to use them   In the wrong situations  foreign key constraints can lead to waterfall replication of accidents  If somebody removes the wrong record  undoing it can become a mammoth task     Also  conversely  when you need to remove something  if poorly designed  constraints can cause all sorts of locks that prevent you

User · Answer

In a project I worked on there was often implicit rather than explicit relationships so that numerous tables could be joined on the same column   Take the following table  Address   AddressId  PK  EntityId EntityType City State  Country Etc     Possible values of EntityType may be Employee  Company  Customer  and the EntityId refers to the primarky key of whichever table you were interested in   I don t really think this is the best way to do things  but it worked for this project

User · Answer

Reasons to use Foreign Keys    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   Reasons not to use Foreign Keys    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  -    I think  I am not certain   that most established databases provide a way to specify a foreign key that is not enforced  and is simply a bit of metadata   Since non-enforcement wipes out every reason not to use FKs  you should probably go that route if any of the reasons in the second section apply

User · Answer

I m sure there are plenty of applications where you can get away with it  but it s not the best idea   You can t always count on your application to properly manage your database  and frankly managing the database should not be of very much concern to your application     If you are using a relational database then it seems you ought to have some relationships defined in it   Unfortunately this attitude  you don t need foreign keys  seems to be embraced by a lot of application developers who would rather not be bothered with silly things like data integrity  but need to because their companies don t have dedicated database developers    Usually in databases put together by these types you are lucky just to have primary keys

User · Answer

There are no good reasons not to use them    unless orphaned rows aren t a big deal to you I guess

User · Answer

The argument I have heard is that the front-end should have these business rules. Foreign keys "add unnecessary overhead" when you shouldn't be allowing any insertions that break your constraints in the first place. Do I agree with this? No, but that is what I have always heard.

EDIT: My guess is he was referring to foreign key constraints, not foreign keys as a concept.

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint    It s important to remember that the SQL standard defines actions that are taken when a foreign key is deleted or updated  The ones I know of are    ON DELETE RESTRICT - Prevents any rows in the other table that have keys in this column from being deleted   This is what Ken Ray described above  ON DELETE CASCADE - If a row in the other table is deleted  delete any rows in this table that reference it  ON DELETE SET DEFAULT - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it to the column s default  ON DELETE SET NULL - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it in this table to null  ON DELETE NO ACTION - This foreign key only marks that it is a foreign key  namely for use in OR mappers    These same actions also apply to ON UPDATE   The default seems to depend on which sql server you re using

User · Answer

I can see a few reasons to use foreign keys  Orphaned rows  as someone mentioned  are annoying  but I never use them either  With a relatively sane DB schema  I don t think they are 100  needed  Constraints are good  but enforcing them via software is a better method  I think   Alex

User · Answer

To me  if you want to go by the ACID standards  it is critical to have foreign keys to ensure referential integrity

User · Answer

In a project I worked on there was often implicit rather than explicit relationships so that numerous tables could be joined on the same column   Take the following table  Address   AddressId  PK  EntityId EntityType City State  Country Etc     Possible values of EntityType may be Employee  Company  Customer  and the EntityId refers to the primarky key of whichever table you were interested in   I don t really think this is the best way to do things  but it worked for this project

User · Answer

Like many things  it s a tradeoff   It s a question of where you want to do the work to verify the data integrity    1  use a foreign key  a single point to configure for a table  feature is already implemented  tested  proven to work    2  leave it to the users of the database  possible multiple users apps updating the same table  s  meaning more potential points of failure and increased complexity in testing    It s more efficient for the database to do  2   easier to maintain and less risk with  1

User · Answer

In DB2  if MQTs  Materialized Query Tables  are used  foreign key constraints are required for the optimizer to choose the right plan for any given query  Since they contain the cardinality information  the optimizer uses the metadata heavily to use a MQT or not

User · Answer

Quite often we receive the errors with FK constraints Cannot add or update a child row  a foreign key constraint fails Suppose there are two tables inventory source and contract lines  and we are referring inventory source id in contract lines from inventory source and suppose we want to delete record from inventory source  and the record is already present in contract lines or we want to delete the PK column from Base table  we get errors for FK constraints  we can avoid it using the steps jotted below   CREATE TABLE inventory source   inventory source id int 11  NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT  display name varchar 40  NOT NULL  state id int 11  NOT NULL  PRIMARY KEY  inventory source id   KEY state id  state id   CONSTRAINT ba inventory source state fk FOREIGN KEY  state id  REFERENCES   ba state  state id    ENGINE InnoDB AUTO INCREMENT 3 DEFAULT CHARSET utf8   CREATE TABLE contract lines  contract line id int 11  NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT  inventory source id int 11  NULL   PRIMARY KEY  contract line id   UNIQUE KEY contract line id  contract line id   KEY AI contract line id  contract line id   KEY contract lines inventory source fk  inventory source id   CONSTRAINT contract lines inventory source fk FOREIGN KEY        inventory source id  REFERENCES ba inventory source  inventory source id    ENGINE InnoDB AUTO INCREMENT 135 DEFAULT CHARSET utf8     We can overcome it using the following steps -   Delete or update the row from the inventory source will  automatically delete or update the matching rows in the contract lines table and this is known as cascade delete or update  Another way of doing it is  setting the column i e inventory source id   in the contract lines table to NULL  when a record corresponding to it is deleted in the inventory source table  We can restrict the parent table for delete or update in other words one can reject the delete or update operation for the inventory source table  Attempt to delete or update a primary key value will not be permitted to proceed if there is a related foreign key value in the referenced table

User · Answer

Verifying foreign key constraints takes some CPU time  so some folks omit foreign keys to get some extra performance

User · Answer

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    Its better to avoid FKs but its risk has to be handled by programmers

User · Answer

I know only Oracle databases  no other ones  and I can tell that Foreign Keys are essential for maintaining data integrity  Prior to inserting data  a data structure needs to be made  and be made correctlty  When that is done - and thus all primary AND foreign keys are created - the work is done    Meaning   orphaned rows   No  Never seen that in my life  Unless a bad programmer forgot the foreign key  or if he implemented that on another level  Both are - in context of Oracle - huge mistakes  which will lead to data duplication  orphan data  and thus   data corruption  I can t imagine a database without FK enforced  It looks like chaos to me  It s a bit like the Unix permission system   imagine that everybody is root  Think of the chaos   Foreign Keys are essential  just like Primary Keys  It s like saying   what if we removing Primary Keys   Well  total chaos is going to happen  That s what  You may not move the primary or foreign key responsibility to the programming level  it must be at the data level   Drawbacks   Yes  absolutely   Because on insert  a lot more checks are going to be happening  But  if data integrity is more important than performance  it s a no-brainer  The problem with performance on Oracle is more related to indexes  which come with PK and FK s

User · Answer

Reasons to use Foreign Keys    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   Reasons not to use Foreign Keys    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  -    I think  I am not certain   that most established databases provide a way to specify a foreign key that is not enforced  and is simply a bit of metadata   Since non-enforcement wipes out every reason not to use FKs  you should probably go that route if any of the reasons in the second section apply

User · Answer

Verifying foreign key constraints takes some CPU time  so some folks omit foreign keys to get some extra performance

User · Answer

I have heard this argument too - from people who forgot to put an index on their foreign keys and then complained that certain operations were slow  because constraint checking could take advantage of any index   So to sum up  There is no good reason not to use foreign keys  All modern databases support cascaded deletes  so

User · Answer

How about maintainability and constancy across application life cycles   Most data has a longer lifespan than the applications that make use of it   Relationships and data integrity are much too important to leave to the hope that the next dev team gets it right in the app code   If you haven t worked on a db with dirty data that doesn t respect the natural relationships  you will   The importance of data integrity will then become very clear

User · Answer

Before adding a record  check that a corresponding record exists in another table   is business logic    Here are some reasons you don t want this in the database     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

User · Answer

The Clarify database is an example of a commercial database that has no primary or foreign keys   http   www geekinterview com question details 18869  The funny thing is  the technical documentation goes to great lengths to explain how tables are related  what columns to use to join them etc     In other words  they could have joined the tables with explicit declarations  DRI  but they chose not to   Consequently  the Clarify database is full of inconsistencies and it underperforms   But I suppose it made the developers job easier  not having to write code to deal with referential integrity such as checking for related rows before deleting  adding   And that  I think  is the main benefit of not having foreign key constraints in a relational database   It makes it easier to develop  at least that is from a devil-may-care point of view

User · Answer

There s one good reason not to use them     If you don t understand their role or how to use them   In the wrong situations  foreign key constraints can lead to waterfall replication of accidents  If somebody removes the wrong record  undoing it can become a mammoth task     Also  conversely  when you need to remove something  if poorly designed  constraints can cause all sorts of locks that prevent you

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint    It s important to remember that the SQL standard defines actions that are taken when a foreign key is deleted or updated  The ones I know of are    ON DELETE RESTRICT - Prevents any rows in the other table that have keys in this column from being deleted   This is what Ken Ray described above  ON DELETE CASCADE - If a row in the other table is deleted  delete any rows in this table that reference it  ON DELETE SET DEFAULT - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it to the column s default  ON DELETE SET NULL - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it in this table to null  ON DELETE NO ACTION - This foreign key only marks that it is a foreign key  namely for use in OR mappers    These same actions also apply to ON UPDATE   The default seems to depend on which sql server you re using

User · Answer

Bigger question is  would you drive with a blindfold on  That   s how it is if you develop a system without referential constraints  Keep in mind  that business requirements change  application design changes  respective logical assumptions in the code changes  logic itself can be refactored  and so on  In general  constraints in databases are put in place under contemporary logical assumptions  seemingly correct for particular set of logical assertions and assumptions    Through the lifecycle of an application  referential and data checks constraints police data collection via the application  especially when new requirements drive logical application changes   To the subject of this listing - a foreign key does not by itself  improve performance   nor does it  degrade performance  significantly from a standpoint of real-time transaction processing system  However  there is an aggregated cost for constraint checking in HIGH volume  batch  system  So  here is the difference  real-time vs  batch transaction process  batch processing - where aggreated cost  incured by constraint checks  of a sequentially processed batch poses a performance hit   In a well designed system  data consistency checks would be done  before  processing a batch through  nevertheless  there is a cost associated here also   therefore  foreign key constraint checks are not required during load time  In fact all constraints  including foreign key  should be temporarily disabled till the batch is processed   QUERY PERFORMANCE - if tables are joined on foreign keys  be cognizant of the fact that foreign key columns are NOT INDEXED  though the respective primary key is indexed by definition   By indexing a foreign key  for that matter  by indexing any key  and joining tables on indexed helps with better performances  not by joining on non-indexed key with foreign key constraint on it   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

User · Answer

I echo the answer by Dmitriy - very well put   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   I usually use this strategy on some tables in my data mart schema  but not in my integrated staging schema  I make sure the tables I am copying data from already have the same constraint enforced  or the ETL routine enforces the constraint

User · Answer

I know only Oracle databases  no other ones  and I can tell that Foreign Keys are essential for maintaining data integrity  Prior to inserting data  a data structure needs to be made  and be made correctlty  When that is done - and thus all primary AND foreign keys are created - the work is done    Meaning   orphaned rows   No  Never seen that in my life  Unless a bad programmer forgot the foreign key  or if he implemented that on another level  Both are - in context of Oracle - huge mistakes  which will lead to data duplication  orphan data  and thus   data corruption  I can t imagine a database without FK enforced  It looks like chaos to me  It s a bit like the Unix permission system   imagine that everybody is root  Think of the chaos   Foreign Keys are essential  just like Primary Keys  It s like saying   what if we removing Primary Keys   Well  total chaos is going to happen  That s what  You may not move the primary or foreign key responsibility to the programming level  it must be at the data level   Drawbacks   Yes  absolutely   Because on insert  a lot more checks are going to be happening  But  if data integrity is more important than performance  it s a no-brainer  The problem with performance on Oracle is more related to indexes  which come with PK and FK s

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint   You can use triggers to have cascading deletes   If you chose your primary key unwisely  then changing that value becomes even more complex   For example  if I have the PK of my  customers  table as the person s name  and make that key a FK in the  orders  table   if the customer wants to change his name  then it is a royal pain     but that is just shoddy database design   I believe the advantages in using fireign keys outweighs any supposed disadvantages

User · Answer

imphasing - this is exactly the kind of mindset that causes maintenance nightmares   Why oh why would you ignore declarative referential integrity  where the data can be guaranteed to be at least consistent  in favour of so called  software enforcement  which is a weak preventative measure at best

User · Answer

I agree with the previous answers in that they are useful to mantain data consistency  However  there was an interesting post by Jeff Atwood some weeks ago that discussed the pros and cons of normalized and consistent data    In a few words  a denormalized database can be faster when handling huge amounts of data  and you may not care about precise consistency depending on the application  but it forces you to be much more careful when dealing with data  as the DB won t be

User · Answer

Verifying foreign key constraints takes some CPU time  so some folks omit foreign keys to get some extra performance

User · Answer

I have to second most of the comments here  Foreign Keys are necessary items to ensure that you have data with integrity   The different options for ON DELETE and ON UPDATE will allow you to get around some of the  down falls  that people mention here regarding their use   I find that in 99  of all my projects I will have FK s to enforce the integrity of the data  however  there are those rare occasions where I have clients that MUST keep their old data  regardless of how bad it is    but then I spend a lot of time writing code that goes in to only get the valid data anyway  so it becomes pointless

User · Answer

There are no good reasons not to use them    unless orphaned rows aren t a big deal to you I guess

User · Answer

I have heard this argument too - from people who forgot to put an index on their foreign keys and then complained that certain operations were slow  because constraint checking could take advantage of any index   So to sum up  There is no good reason not to use foreign keys  All modern databases support cascaded deletes  so

User · Answer

I always thought it was lazy not to use them  I was taught it should always be done  But then  I didnt listen to Joel s discussion  He may have had a good reason  I don t know

User · Answer

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

User · Answer

This is an issue of upbringing   If somewhere in your educational or professional career you spent time feeding and caring for databases  or worked closely with talented folks who did   then the fundamental tenets of entities and relationships are well-ingrained in your thought process   Among those rudiments is how when why to specify keys in your database  primary  foreign and perhaps alternate    It s second nature   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   Most everyone was taught when they were kids that brushing your teeth was important   Can you get by without it   Sure  but somewhere down the line you ll have less teeth available than you could have if you had brushed after every meal   If moms and dads were responsible enough to cover database design as well as oral hygiene  we wouldn t be having this conversation   -

User · Answer

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

User · Answer

The argument I have heard is that the front-end should have these business rules. Foreign keys "add unnecessary overhead" when you shouldn't be allowing any insertions that break your constraints in the first place. Do I agree with this? No, but that is what I have always heard.

EDIT: My guess is he was referring to foreign key constraints, not foreign keys as a concept.

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint    It s important to remember that the SQL standard defines actions that are taken when a foreign key is deleted or updated  The ones I know of are    ON DELETE RESTRICT - Prevents any rows in the other table that have keys in this column from being deleted   This is what Ken Ray described above  ON DELETE CASCADE - If a row in the other table is deleted  delete any rows in this table that reference it  ON DELETE SET DEFAULT - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it to the column s default  ON DELETE SET NULL - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it in this table to null  ON DELETE NO ACTION - This foreign key only marks that it is a foreign key  namely for use in OR mappers    These same actions also apply to ON UPDATE   The default seems to depend on which sql server you re using

User · Answer

There s one good reason not to use them     If you don t understand their role or how to use them   In the wrong situations  foreign key constraints can lead to waterfall replication of accidents  If somebody removes the wrong record  undoing it can become a mammoth task     Also  conversely  when you need to remove something  if poorly designed  constraints can cause all sorts of locks that prevent you

User · Answer

To me  if you want to go by the ACID standards  it is critical to have foreign keys to ensure referential integrity

User · Answer

The argument I have heard is that the front-end should have these business rules. Foreign keys "add unnecessary overhead" when you shouldn't be allowing any insertions that break your constraints in the first place. Do I agree with this? No, but that is what I have always heard.

EDIT: My guess is he was referring to foreign key constraints, not foreign keys as a concept.

User · Answer

I agree with the previous answers in that they are useful to mantain data consistency  However  there was an interesting post by Jeff Atwood some weeks ago that discussed the pros and cons of normalized and consistent data    In a few words  a denormalized database can be faster when handling huge amounts of data  and you may not care about precise consistency depending on the application  but it forces you to be much more careful when dealing with data  as the DB won t be

User · Answer

Additional Reason to use Foreign Keys  - Allows greater reuse of a database  Additional Reason to NOT use Foreign Keys  - You are trying to lock-in a customer into your tool by reducing reuse

User · Answer

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

User · Answer

In a project I worked on there was often implicit rather than explicit relationships so that numerous tables could be joined on the same column   Take the following table  Address   AddressId  PK  EntityId EntityType City State  Country Etc     Possible values of EntityType may be Employee  Company  Customer  and the EntityId refers to the primarky key of whichever table you were interested in   I don t really think this is the best way to do things  but it worked for this project

User · Answer

In a project I worked on there was often implicit rather than explicit relationships so that numerous tables could be joined on the same column   Take the following table  Address   AddressId  PK  EntityId EntityType City State  Country Etc     Possible values of EntityType may be Employee  Company  Customer  and the EntityId refers to the primarky key of whichever table you were interested in   I don t really think this is the best way to do things  but it worked for this project

User · Answer

I have to second most of the comments here  Foreign Keys are necessary items to ensure that you have data with integrity   The different options for ON DELETE and ON UPDATE will allow you to get around some of the  down falls  that people mention here regarding their use   I find that in 99  of all my projects I will have FK s to enforce the integrity of the data  however  there are those rare occasions where I have clients that MUST keep their old data  regardless of how bad it is    but then I spend a lot of time writing code that goes in to only get the valid data anyway  so it becomes pointless

User · Answer

There are no good reasons not to use them    unless orphaned rows aren t a big deal to you I guess

User · Answer

I ll echo what Dmitriy said  but adding on a point   I worked on a batch billing system that needed to insert large sets of rows on 30  tables   We weren t allowed to do a data pump  Oracle  so we had to do bulk inserts   Those tables had foreign keys on them  but we had already ensured that they were not breaking any relationships   Before insert  we disable the foreign key constraints so that Oracle doesn t take forever doing the inserts   After the insert is successful  we re-enable the constraints   PS  In a large database with many foreign keys and child row data for a single record  sometimes foreign keys can be bad  and you may want to disallow cascading deletes   For us in the billing system  it would take too long and be too taxing on the database if we did cascading deletes  so we just mark the record as bad with a field on the main driver  parent  table

User · Answer

I always use them  but then I make databases for financial systems   The database is the critical part of the application   If the data in a financial database isn t totally accurate then it really doesn t matter how much effort you put into your code front-end design   You re just wasting your time   There s also the fact that multiple systems generally need to interface directly with the database - from other systems that just read data out  Crystal Reports  to systems that insert data  not necessarily using an API I ve designed  it may be written by a dull-witted manager who has just discovered VBScript and has the SA password for the SQL box    If the database isn t as idiot-proof as it can possibly be  well - bye bye database   If your data is important  then yes  use foreign keys  create a suite of stored procedures to interact with the data  and make the toughest DB you can   If your data isn t important  why are you making a database to begin with

User · Answer

This is an issue of upbringing   If somewhere in your educational or professional career you spent time feeding and caring for databases  or worked closely with talented folks who did   then the fundamental tenets of entities and relationships are well-ingrained in your thought process   Among those rudiments is how when why to specify keys in your database  primary  foreign and perhaps alternate    It s second nature   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   Most everyone was taught when they were kids that brushing your teeth was important   Can you get by without it   Sure  but somewhere down the line you ll have less teeth available than you could have if you had brushed after every meal   If moms and dads were responsible enough to cover database design as well as oral hygiene  we wouldn t be having this conversation   -

User · Answer

To me  if you want to go by the ACID standards  it is critical to have foreign keys to ensure referential integrity

User · Answer

In DB2  if MQTs  Materialized Query Tables  are used  foreign key constraints are required for the optimizer to choose the right plan for any given query  Since they contain the cardinality information  the optimizer uses the metadata heavily to use a MQT or not

User · Answer

I have heard this argument too - from people who forgot to put an index on their foreign keys and then complained that certain operations were slow  because constraint checking could take advantage of any index   So to sum up  There is no good reason not to use foreign keys  All modern databases support cascaded deletes  so

User · Answer

This is an issue of upbringing   If somewhere in your educational or professional career you spent time feeding and caring for databases  or worked closely with talented folks who did   then the fundamental tenets of entities and relationships are well-ingrained in your thought process   Among those rudiments is how when why to specify keys in your database  primary  foreign and perhaps alternate    It s second nature   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   Most everyone was taught when they were kids that brushing your teeth was important   Can you get by without it   Sure  but somewhere down the line you ll have less teeth available than you could have if you had brushed after every meal   If moms and dads were responsible enough to cover database design as well as oral hygiene  we wouldn t be having this conversation   -

User · Answer

The argument I have heard is that the front-end should have these business rules. Foreign keys "add unnecessary overhead" when you shouldn't be allowing any insertions that break your constraints in the first place. Do I agree with this? No, but that is what I have always heard.

EDIT: My guess is he was referring to foreign key constraints, not foreign keys as a concept.

User · Answer

I also think that foreign keys are a necessity in most databases   The only drawback  besides the performance hit that comes with having enforced consistence  is that having a foreign key allows people to write code that assumes there is a functional foreign key   That should never be allowed   For example  I ve seen people write code that inserts into the referenced table and then attempts inserts into the referencing table without verifying the first insert was successful   If the foreign key is removed at a later time  that results in an inconsistent database   You also don t have the option of assuming a specific behavior on update or delete   You still need to write your code to do what you want regardless of whether there is a foreign key present   If you assume deletes are cascaded when they are not  your deletes will fail   If you assume updates to the referenced columns are propogated to the referencing rows when they are not  your updates will fail   For the purposes of writing code  you might as well not have those features   If those features are turned on  then your code will emulate them anyway and you ll lose a little performance   So  the summary      Foreign keys are essential if you need a consistent database   Foreign keys should never be assumed to be present or functional in code that you write

User · Answer

I agree with the previous answers in that they are useful to mantain data consistency  However  there was an interesting post by Jeff Atwood some weeks ago that discussed the pros and cons of normalized and consistent data    In a few words  a denormalized database can be faster when handling huge amounts of data  and you may not care about precise consistency depending on the application  but it forces you to be much more careful when dealing with data  as the DB won t be

User · Answer

I have to second most of the comments here  Foreign Keys are necessary items to ensure that you have data with integrity   The different options for ON DELETE and ON UPDATE will allow you to get around some of the  down falls  that people mention here regarding their use   I find that in 99  of all my projects I will have FK s to enforce the integrity of the data  however  there are those rare occasions where I have clients that MUST keep their old data  regardless of how bad it is    but then I spend a lot of time writing code that goes in to only get the valid data anyway  so it becomes pointless

User · Answer

There s one good reason not to use them     If you don t understand their role or how to use them   In the wrong situations  foreign key constraints can lead to waterfall replication of accidents  If somebody removes the wrong record  undoing it can become a mammoth task     Also  conversely  when you need to remove something  if poorly designed  constraints can cause all sorts of locks that prevent you

User · Answer

I always thought it was lazy not to use them  I was taught it should always be done  But then  I didnt listen to Joel s discussion  He may have had a good reason  I don t know

User · Answer

Verifying foreign key constraints takes some CPU time  so some folks omit foreign keys to get some extra performance

User · Answer

I can see a few reasons to use foreign keys  Orphaned rows  as someone mentioned  are annoying  but I never use them either  With a relatively sane DB schema  I don t think they are 100  needed  Constraints are good  but enforcing them via software is a better method  I think   Alex

User · Answer

I always use them  but then I make databases for financial systems   The database is the critical part of the application   If the data in a financial database isn t totally accurate then it really doesn t matter how much effort you put into your code front-end design   You re just wasting your time   There s also the fact that multiple systems generally need to interface directly with the database - from other systems that just read data out  Crystal Reports  to systems that insert data  not necessarily using an API I ve designed  it may be written by a dull-witted manager who has just discovered VBScript and has the SA password for the SQL box    If the database isn t as idiot-proof as it can possibly be  well - bye bye database   If your data is important  then yes  use foreign keys  create a suite of stored procedures to interact with the data  and make the toughest DB you can   If your data isn t important  why are you making a database to begin with

User · Answer

There are no good reasons not to use them    unless orphaned rows aren t a big deal to you I guess

User · Answer

I echo the answer by Dmitriy - very well put   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   I usually use this strategy on some tables in my data mart schema  but not in my integrated staging schema  I make sure the tables I am copying data from already have the same constraint enforced  or the ETL routine enforces the constraint

User · Answer

Quite often we receive the errors with FK constraints Cannot add or update a child row  a foreign key constraint fails Suppose there are two tables inventory source and contract lines  and we are referring inventory source id in contract lines from inventory source and suppose we want to delete record from inventory source  and the record is already present in contract lines or we want to delete the PK column from Base table  we get errors for FK constraints  we can avoid it using the steps jotted below   CREATE TABLE inventory source   inventory source id int 11  NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT  display name varchar 40  NOT NULL  state id int 11  NOT NULL  PRIMARY KEY  inventory source id   KEY state id  state id   CONSTRAINT ba inventory source state fk FOREIGN KEY  state id  REFERENCES   ba state  state id    ENGINE InnoDB AUTO INCREMENT 3 DEFAULT CHARSET utf8   CREATE TABLE contract lines  contract line id int 11  NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT  inventory source id int 11  NULL   PRIMARY KEY  contract line id   UNIQUE KEY contract line id  contract line id   KEY AI contract line id  contract line id   KEY contract lines inventory source fk  inventory source id   CONSTRAINT contract lines inventory source fk FOREIGN KEY        inventory source id  REFERENCES ba inventory source  inventory source id    ENGINE InnoDB AUTO INCREMENT 135 DEFAULT CHARSET utf8     We can overcome it using the following steps -   Delete or update the row from the inventory source will  automatically delete or update the matching rows in the contract lines table and this is known as cascade delete or update  Another way of doing it is  setting the column i e inventory source id   in the contract lines table to NULL  when a record corresponding to it is deleted in the inventory source table  We can restrict the parent table for delete or update in other words one can reject the delete or update operation for the inventory source table  Attempt to delete or update a primary key value will not be permitted to proceed if there is a related foreign key value in the referenced table

User · Answer

Wowowo    Answers everywhere  Actually this is the most complicated topic I have ever encountered  I use FKs when they are needed but on production environment I rarely use them   Here is my whys I rarely use the Fks   1  Most of the time I am dealing with huge data on small server to improve performance I need to remove the FKs  Because when you have FKs and you do Create  Update or Delete the RDBMS first check if there no constraint violation and if you have huge DB that could be something fatal  2  Sometimes I need to import data from others places and because I am not too sure of how well structured they are  I simply drop the FKs   3  In case you are dealing with multiple DBs and having reference key in an other DB will not go well as for now  until you remove the FKs  cross database relations   4  They was also a case when you write an application which will seat on whatever RDBMS or you want your DB to be exported and imported in any RDBMS system in this case each specific RDBMS system has his own way of dealing with FKs and you will probably be obliged to drop the use of FKs   5  If you user RDBMS platform  ORMs  you know that some of them offer their own mapping depending on the solution and technicality their offer and you don t care about creating the tables and their FKs   6  Before the last point will be knowledge to deal with DB that has FKs and the knowledge to write an application that does all the Job without the need of FK  7  Lastly as I started saying it all depend on your scenario  in case knowledge is not a barrier  You will always want to run the best of the best you can get   Thank you everybody

User · Answer

Verifying foreign key constraints takes some CPU time  so some folks omit foreign keys to get some extra performance

User · Answer

I ll echo what Dmitriy said  but adding on a point   I worked on a batch billing system that needed to insert large sets of rows on 30  tables   We weren t allowed to do a data pump  Oracle  so we had to do bulk inserts   Those tables had foreign keys on them  but we had already ensured that they were not breaking any relationships   Before insert  we disable the foreign key constraints so that Oracle doesn t take forever doing the inserts   After the insert is successful  we re-enable the constraints   PS  In a large database with many foreign keys and child row data for a single record  sometimes foreign keys can be bad  and you may want to disallow cascading deletes   For us in the billing system  it would take too long and be too taxing on the database if we did cascading deletes  so we just mark the record as bad with a field on the main driver  parent  table

User · Answer

Many of the people answering here get too hung up on the importance of referential integrity implemented via referential constraints  Working on large databases with referential integrity just does not perform well  Oracle seems particularly bad at cascading deletes  My rule of thumb is that applications should never update the database directly and should be via a stored procedure  This keeps the code base inside the database  and means that the database maintains its integrity   Where many applications may be accessing the database  problems do arise because of referential integrity constraints but this is down to a control   There is a wider issue too in that  application developers may have very different requirements that database developers may not necessarily be that familiar with

User · Answer

Verifying foreign key constraints takes some CPU time  so some folks omit foreign keys to get some extra performance

User · Answer

I have heard this argument too - from people who forgot to put an index on their foreign keys and then complained that certain operations were slow  because constraint checking could take advantage of any index   So to sum up  There is no good reason not to use foreign keys  All modern databases support cascaded deletes  so

User · Answer

How about maintainability and constancy across application life cycles   Most data has a longer lifespan than the applications that make use of it   Relationships and data integrity are much too important to leave to the hope that the next dev team gets it right in the app code   If you haven t worked on a db with dirty data that doesn t respect the natural relationships  you will   The importance of data integrity will then become very clear

User · Answer

I always use them  but then I make databases for financial systems   The database is the critical part of the application   If the data in a financial database isn t totally accurate then it really doesn t matter how much effort you put into your code front-end design   You re just wasting your time   There s also the fact that multiple systems generally need to interface directly with the database - from other systems that just read data out  Crystal Reports  to systems that insert data  not necessarily using an API I ve designed  it may be written by a dull-witted manager who has just discovered VBScript and has the SA password for the SQL box    If the database isn t as idiot-proof as it can possibly be  well - bye bye database   If your data is important  then yes  use foreign keys  create a suite of stored procedures to interact with the data  and make the toughest DB you can   If your data isn t important  why are you making a database to begin with

User · Answer

Reasons to use Foreign Keys    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   Reasons not to use Foreign Keys    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  -    I think  I am not certain   that most established databases provide a way to specify a foreign key that is not enforced  and is simply a bit of metadata   Since non-enforcement wipes out every reason not to use FKs  you should probably go that route if any of the reasons in the second section apply

User · Answer

In DB2  if MQTs  Materialized Query Tables  are used  foreign key constraints are required for the optimizer to choose the right plan for any given query  Since they contain the cardinality information  the optimizer uses the metadata heavily to use a MQT or not

User · Answer

Like many things  it s a tradeoff   It s a question of where you want to do the work to verify the data integrity    1  use a foreign key  a single point to configure for a table  feature is already implemented  tested  proven to work    2  leave it to the users of the database  possible multiple users apps updating the same table  s  meaning more potential points of failure and increased complexity in testing    It s more efficient for the database to do  2   easier to maintain and less risk with  1

User · Answer

I can see a few reasons to use foreign keys  Orphaned rows  as someone mentioned  are annoying  but I never use them either  With a relatively sane DB schema  I don t think they are 100  needed  Constraints are good  but enforcing them via software is a better method  I think   Alex

User · Answer

I always use them  but then I make databases for financial systems   The database is the critical part of the application   If the data in a financial database isn t totally accurate then it really doesn t matter how much effort you put into your code front-end design   You re just wasting your time   There s also the fact that multiple systems generally need to interface directly with the database - from other systems that just read data out  Crystal Reports  to systems that insert data  not necessarily using an API I ve designed  it may be written by a dull-witted manager who has just discovered VBScript and has the SA password for the SQL box    If the database isn t as idiot-proof as it can possibly be  well - bye bye database   If your data is important  then yes  use foreign keys  create a suite of stored procedures to interact with the data  and make the toughest DB you can   If your data isn t important  why are you making a database to begin with

User · Answer

I echo the answer by Dmitriy - very well put   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   I usually use this strategy on some tables in my data mart schema  but not in my integrated staging schema  I make sure the tables I am copying data from already have the same constraint enforced  or the ETL routine enforces the constraint

User · Answer

How about maintainability and constancy across application life cycles   Most data has a longer lifespan than the applications that make use of it   Relationships and data integrity are much too important to leave to the hope that the next dev team gets it right in the app code   If you haven t worked on a db with dirty data that doesn t respect the natural relationships  you will   The importance of data integrity will then become very clear

User · Answer

imphasing - this is exactly the kind of mindset that causes maintenance nightmares   Why oh why would you ignore declarative referential integrity  where the data can be guaranteed to be at least consistent  in favour of so called  software enforcement  which is a weak preventative measure at best

User · Answer

The argument I have heard is that the front-end should have these business rules. Foreign keys "add unnecessary overhead" when you shouldn't be allowing any insertions that break your constraints in the first place. Do I agree with this? No, but that is what I have always heard.

EDIT: My guess is he was referring to foreign key constraints, not foreign keys as a concept.

User · Answer

To me  if you want to go by the ACID standards  it is critical to have foreign keys to ensure referential integrity

User · Answer

I agree with the previous answers in that they are useful to mantain data consistency  However  there was an interesting post by Jeff Atwood some weeks ago that discussed the pros and cons of normalized and consistent data    In a few words  a denormalized database can be faster when handling huge amounts of data  and you may not care about precise consistency depending on the application  but it forces you to be much more careful when dealing with data  as the DB won t be

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint   You can use triggers to have cascading deletes   If you chose your primary key unwisely  then changing that value becomes even more complex   For example  if I have the PK of my  customers  table as the person s name  and make that key a FK in the  orders  table   if the customer wants to change his name  then it is a royal pain     but that is just shoddy database design   I believe the advantages in using fireign keys outweighs any supposed disadvantages

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint   You can use triggers to have cascading deletes   If you chose your primary key unwisely  then changing that value becomes even more complex   For example  if I have the PK of my  customers  table as the person s name  and make that key a FK in the  orders  table   if the customer wants to change his name  then it is a royal pain     but that is just shoddy database design   I believe the advantages in using fireign keys outweighs any supposed disadvantages

User · Answer

There are no good reasons not to use them    unless orphaned rows aren t a big deal to you I guess

User · Answer

Wowowo    Answers everywhere  Actually this is the most complicated topic I have ever encountered  I use FKs when they are needed but on production environment I rarely use them   Here is my whys I rarely use the Fks   1  Most of the time I am dealing with huge data on small server to improve performance I need to remove the FKs  Because when you have FKs and you do Create  Update or Delete the RDBMS first check if there no constraint violation and if you have huge DB that could be something fatal  2  Sometimes I need to import data from others places and because I am not too sure of how well structured they are  I simply drop the FKs   3  In case you are dealing with multiple DBs and having reference key in an other DB will not go well as for now  until you remove the FKs  cross database relations   4  They was also a case when you write an application which will seat on whatever RDBMS or you want your DB to be exported and imported in any RDBMS system in this case each specific RDBMS system has his own way of dealing with FKs and you will probably be obliged to drop the use of FKs   5  If you user RDBMS platform  ORMs  you know that some of them offer their own mapping depending on the solution and technicality their offer and you don t care about creating the tables and their FKs   6  Before the last point will be knowledge to deal with DB that has FKs and the knowledge to write an application that does all the Job without the need of FK  7  Lastly as I started saying it all depend on your scenario  in case knowledge is not a barrier  You will always want to run the best of the best you can get   Thank you everybody

User · Answer

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    Its better to avoid FKs but its risk has to be handled by programmers

User · Answer

Many of the people answering here get too hung up on the importance of referential integrity implemented via referential constraints  Working on large databases with referential integrity just does not perform well  Oracle seems particularly bad at cascading deletes  My rule of thumb is that applications should never update the database directly and should be via a stored procedure  This keeps the code base inside the database  and means that the database maintains its integrity   Where many applications may be accessing the database  problems do arise because of referential integrity constraints but this is down to a control   There is a wider issue too in that  application developers may have very different requirements that database developers may not necessarily be that familiar with

User · Answer

Before adding a record  check that a corresponding record exists in another table   is business logic    Here are some reasons you don t want this in the database     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

User · Answer

How about maintainability and constancy across application life cycles   Most data has a longer lifespan than the applications that make use of it   Relationships and data integrity are much too important to leave to the hope that the next dev team gets it right in the app code   If you haven t worked on a db with dirty data that doesn t respect the natural relationships  you will   The importance of data integrity will then become very clear

User · Answer

One good principle of data structure design is to ensure that every attribute of a table or object be subject to a well-understood constraint  This is important because if you or your program can count on valid data in the database  you are less likely to have program defects caused by bad data  You also spend less time writing code to handle error conditions  and you are more likely to write error-handling code up front    In many cases these constraints can be defined at compile-time  in which case you can write a filter to ensure that the attribute always falls within range  or the attempt to save the attribute fails    However  in many cases these constraints can change at run-time  For example  you may have a  cars  table that has  colour  as an attribute which initially takes on the values  say  of  red    green  and  blue   It is possible during the execution of the program to add valid colours to that initial list  and new  cars  added may take on any colour in the up-to-date list of colours  Furthermore  you usually want this updated list of colours to survive a program restart    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    If you don t use foreign keys for these requirements  you must write software to manage the list  look valid entries  save it to disk  structure the data efficiently if the list is large  ensure that any updates to the list don t corrupt the list file  provide serial access to the list in case there are multiple readers and or writers  and so on  i e  You need to implement a lot of RDBMS functionality

User · Answer

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

User · Answer

Wowowo    Answers everywhere  Actually this is the most complicated topic I have ever encountered  I use FKs when they are needed but on production environment I rarely use them   Here is my whys I rarely use the Fks   1  Most of the time I am dealing with huge data on small server to improve performance I need to remove the FKs  Because when you have FKs and you do Create  Update or Delete the RDBMS first check if there no constraint violation and if you have huge DB that could be something fatal  2  Sometimes I need to import data from others places and because I am not too sure of how well structured they are  I simply drop the FKs   3  In case you are dealing with multiple DBs and having reference key in an other DB will not go well as for now  until you remove the FKs  cross database relations   4  They was also a case when you write an application which will seat on whatever RDBMS or you want your DB to be exported and imported in any RDBMS system in this case each specific RDBMS system has his own way of dealing with FKs and you will probably be obliged to drop the use of FKs   5  If you user RDBMS platform  ORMs  you know that some of them offer their own mapping depending on the solution and technicality their offer and you don t care about creating the tables and their FKs   6  Before the last point will be knowledge to deal with DB that has FKs and the knowledge to write an application that does all the Job without the need of FK  7  Lastly as I started saying it all depend on your scenario  in case knowledge is not a barrier  You will always want to run the best of the best you can get   Thank you everybody

User · Answer

The Clarify database is an example of a commercial database that has no primary or foreign keys   http   www geekinterview com question details 18869  The funny thing is  the technical documentation goes to great lengths to explain how tables are related  what columns to use to join them etc     In other words  they could have joined the tables with explicit declarations  DRI  but they chose not to   Consequently  the Clarify database is full of inconsistencies and it underperforms   But I suppose it made the developers job easier  not having to write code to deal with referential integrity such as checking for related rows before deleting  adding   And that  I think  is the main benefit of not having foreign key constraints in a relational database   It makes it easier to develop  at least that is from a devil-may-care point of view

User · Answer

How about maintainability and constancy across application life cycles   Most data has a longer lifespan than the applications that make use of it   Relationships and data integrity are much too important to leave to the hope that the next dev team gets it right in the app code   If you haven t worked on a db with dirty data that doesn t respect the natural relationships  you will   The importance of data integrity will then become very clear

User · Answer

Quite often we receive the errors with FK constraints Cannot add or update a child row  a foreign key constraint fails Suppose there are two tables inventory source and contract lines  and we are referring inventory source id in contract lines from inventory source and suppose we want to delete record from inventory source  and the record is already present in contract lines or we want to delete the PK column from Base table  we get errors for FK constraints  we can avoid it using the steps jotted below   CREATE TABLE inventory source   inventory source id int 11  NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT  display name varchar 40  NOT NULL  state id int 11  NOT NULL  PRIMARY KEY  inventory source id   KEY state id  state id   CONSTRAINT ba inventory source state fk FOREIGN KEY  state id  REFERENCES   ba state  state id    ENGINE InnoDB AUTO INCREMENT 3 DEFAULT CHARSET utf8   CREATE TABLE contract lines  contract line id int 11  NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT  inventory source id int 11  NULL   PRIMARY KEY  contract line id   UNIQUE KEY contract line id  contract line id   KEY AI contract line id  contract line id   KEY contract lines inventory source fk  inventory source id   CONSTRAINT contract lines inventory source fk FOREIGN KEY        inventory source id  REFERENCES ba inventory source  inventory source id    ENGINE InnoDB AUTO INCREMENT 135 DEFAULT CHARSET utf8     We can overcome it using the following steps -   Delete or update the row from the inventory source will  automatically delete or update the matching rows in the contract lines table and this is known as cascade delete or update  Another way of doing it is  setting the column i e inventory source id   in the contract lines table to NULL  when a record corresponding to it is deleted in the inventory source table  We can restrict the parent table for delete or update in other words one can reject the delete or update operation for the inventory source table  Attempt to delete or update a primary key value will not be permitted to proceed if there is a related foreign key value in the referenced table

User · Answer

To me  if you want to go by the ACID standards  it is critical to have foreign keys to ensure referential integrity

User · Answer

Foreign keys are essential to any relational database model

User · Answer

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

User · Answer

Verifying foreign key constraints takes some CPU time  so some folks omit foreign keys to get some extra performance

User · Answer

I m sure there are plenty of applications where you can get away with it  but it s not the best idea   You can t always count on your application to properly manage your database  and frankly managing the database should not be of very much concern to your application     If you are using a relational database then it seems you ought to have some relationships defined in it   Unfortunately this attitude  you don t need foreign keys  seems to be embraced by a lot of application developers who would rather not be bothered with silly things like data integrity  but need to because their companies don t have dedicated database developers    Usually in databases put together by these types you are lucky just to have primary keys

User · Answer

I agree with the previous answers in that they are useful to mantain data consistency  However  there was an interesting post by Jeff Atwood some weeks ago that discussed the pros and cons of normalized and consistent data    In a few words  a denormalized database can be faster when handling huge amounts of data  and you may not care about precise consistency depending on the application  but it forces you to be much more careful when dealing with data  as the DB won t be

User · Answer

I agree with the previous answers in that they are useful to mantain data consistency  However  there was an interesting post by Jeff Atwood some weeks ago that discussed the pros and cons of normalized and consistent data    In a few words  a denormalized database can be faster when handling huge amounts of data  and you may not care about precise consistency depending on the application  but it forces you to be much more careful when dealing with data  as the DB won t be

User · Answer

This is an issue of upbringing   If somewhere in your educational or professional career you spent time feeding and caring for databases  or worked closely with talented folks who did   then the fundamental tenets of entities and relationships are well-ingrained in your thought process   Among those rudiments is how when why to specify keys in your database  primary  foreign and perhaps alternate    It s second nature   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   Most everyone was taught when they were kids that brushing your teeth was important   Can you get by without it   Sure  but somewhere down the line you ll have less teeth available than you could have if you had brushed after every meal   If moms and dads were responsible enough to cover database design as well as oral hygiene  we wouldn t be having this conversation   -

User · Answer

I echo the answer by Dmitriy - very well put   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   I usually use this strategy on some tables in my data mart schema  but not in my integrated staging schema  I make sure the tables I am copying data from already have the same constraint enforced  or the ETL routine enforces the constraint

User · Answer

Update  I always use foreign keys now  My answer to the objection  they complicated testing  is  write your unit tests so they don t need the database at all  Any tests that use the database should use it properly  and that includes foreign keys  If the setup is painful  find a less painful way to do the setup      Foreign keys complicate automated testing  Suppose you re using foreign keys  You re writing an automated test that says  when I update a financial account  it should save a record of the transaction   In this test  you re only concerned with two tables  accounts and transactions   However  accounts has a foreign key to contracts  and contracts has a fk to clients  and clients has a fk to cities  and cities has a fk to states   Now the database will not allow you to run your test without setting up data in four tables that aren t related to your test   There are at least two possible perspectives on this     That s a good thing  your test should be realistic  and those data constraints will exist in production    That s a bad thing  you should be able to unit test pieces of the system without involving other pieces  You can add integration tests for the system as a whole     It may also be possible to temporarily turn off foreign key checks while running tests  MySQL  at least  supports this

User · Answer

Like many things  it s a tradeoff   It s a question of where you want to do the work to verify the data integrity    1  use a foreign key  a single point to configure for a table  feature is already implemented  tested  proven to work    2  leave it to the users of the database  possible multiple users apps updating the same table  s  meaning more potential points of failure and increased complexity in testing    It s more efficient for the database to do  2   easier to maintain and less risk with  1

User · Answer

Foreign keys are essential to any relational database model

User · Answer

Foreign keys are essential to any relational database model

User · Answer

Reasons to use Foreign Keys    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   Reasons not to use Foreign Keys    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  -    I think  I am not certain   that most established databases provide a way to specify a foreign key that is not enforced  and is simply a bit of metadata   Since non-enforcement wipes out every reason not to use FKs  you should probably go that route if any of the reasons in the second section apply

User · Answer

I echo the answer by Dmitriy - very well put   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   I usually use this strategy on some tables in my data mart schema  but not in my integrated staging schema  I make sure the tables I am copying data from already have the same constraint enforced  or the ETL routine enforces the constraint

User · Answer

I always thought it was lazy not to use them  I was taught it should always be done  But then  I didnt listen to Joel s discussion  He may have had a good reason  I don t know

User · Answer

I have to second most of the comments here  Foreign Keys are necessary items to ensure that you have data with integrity   The different options for ON DELETE and ON UPDATE will allow you to get around some of the  down falls  that people mention here regarding their use   I find that in 99  of all my projects I will have FK s to enforce the integrity of the data  however  there are those rare occasions where I have clients that MUST keep their old data  regardless of how bad it is    but then I spend a lot of time writing code that goes in to only get the valid data anyway  so it becomes pointless

User · Answer

I m sure there are plenty of applications where you can get away with it  but it s not the best idea   You can t always count on your application to properly manage your database  and frankly managing the database should not be of very much concern to your application     If you are using a relational database then it seems you ought to have some relationships defined in it   Unfortunately this attitude  you don t need foreign keys  seems to be embraced by a lot of application developers who would rather not be bothered with silly things like data integrity  but need to because their companies don t have dedicated database developers    Usually in databases put together by these types you are lucky just to have primary keys

User · Answer

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    Its better to avoid FKs but its risk has to be handled by programmers

User · Answer

Like many things  it s a tradeoff   It s a question of where you want to do the work to verify the data integrity    1  use a foreign key  a single point to configure for a table  feature is already implemented  tested  proven to work    2  leave it to the users of the database  possible multiple users apps updating the same table  s  meaning more potential points of failure and increased complexity in testing    It s more efficient for the database to do  2   easier to maintain and less risk with  1

User · Answer

I echo the answer by Dmitriy - very well put   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   I usually use this strategy on some tables in my data mart schema  but not in my integrated staging schema  I make sure the tables I am copying data from already have the same constraint enforced  or the ETL routine enforces the constraint

User · Answer

If you are absolutey sure  that the one underlying database system will not change in the future  I would use foreign keys to ensure data integrity   But here is another very good real-life reason not to use foreign keys at all   You are developing a product  which should support different database systems    If you are working with the Entity Framework  which is able to connect to many different database systems  you may also want to support  open-source-free-of-charge  serverless databases  Not all of these databases may support your foreign key rules  updating  deleting rows         This can lead to different problems   1   You may run into errors  when the database structure is created or updated  Maybe there will only be silent errors  because your foreign keys are just ignored by the database system   2   If you rely on foreign keys  you will propably make less or even no data integrity checks in your business logic  Now  if the new database system does not support these foreign key rules or just behaves in a different way  you have to rewrite your business logic   You may ask  Who needs different database systems  Well  not everybody can afford or wants a full blown SQL-Server on his machine  This is software  which needs to be maintained  Others already have invested time and money in some other DB system  Serverless database are great for small customers on only one machine    Nobody knows  how all of these DB systems behave  but your business logic  with integrity checks  always stays the same

User · Answer

There s one good reason not to use them     If you don t understand their role or how to use them   In the wrong situations  foreign key constraints can lead to waterfall replication of accidents  If somebody removes the wrong record  undoing it can become a mammoth task     Also  conversely  when you need to remove something  if poorly designed  constraints can cause all sorts of locks that prevent you

User · Answer

The Clarify database is an example of a commercial database that has no primary or foreign keys   http   www geekinterview com question details 18869  The funny thing is  the technical documentation goes to great lengths to explain how tables are related  what columns to use to join them etc     In other words  they could have joined the tables with explicit declarations  DRI  but they chose not to   Consequently  the Clarify database is full of inconsistencies and it underperforms   But I suppose it made the developers job easier  not having to write code to deal with referential integrity such as checking for related rows before deleting  adding   And that  I think  is the main benefit of not having foreign key constraints in a relational database   It makes it easier to develop  at least that is from a devil-may-care point of view

User · Answer

Additional Reason to use Foreign Keys  - Allows greater reuse of a database  Additional Reason to NOT use Foreign Keys  - You are trying to lock-in a customer into your tool by reducing reuse

User · Answer

This is an issue of upbringing   If somewhere in your educational or professional career you spent time feeding and caring for databases  or worked closely with talented folks who did   then the fundamental tenets of entities and relationships are well-ingrained in your thought process   Among those rudiments is how when why to specify keys in your database  primary  foreign and perhaps alternate    It s second nature   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   Most everyone was taught when they were kids that brushing your teeth was important   Can you get by without it   Sure  but somewhere down the line you ll have less teeth available than you could have if you had brushed after every meal   If moms and dads were responsible enough to cover database design as well as oral hygiene  we wouldn t be having this conversation   -

User · Answer

How about maintainability and constancy across application life cycles   Most data has a longer lifespan than the applications that make use of it   Relationships and data integrity are much too important to leave to the hope that the next dev team gets it right in the app code   If you haven t worked on a db with dirty data that doesn t respect the natural relationships  you will   The importance of data integrity will then become very clear

User · Answer

There s one good reason not to use them     If you don t understand their role or how to use them   In the wrong situations  foreign key constraints can lead to waterfall replication of accidents  If somebody removes the wrong record  undoing it can become a mammoth task     Also  conversely  when you need to remove something  if poorly designed  constraints can cause all sorts of locks that prevent you

User · Answer

Like many things  it s a tradeoff   It s a question of where you want to do the work to verify the data integrity    1  use a foreign key  a single point to configure for a table  feature is already implemented  tested  proven to work    2  leave it to the users of the database  possible multiple users apps updating the same table  s  meaning more potential points of failure and increased complexity in testing    It s more efficient for the database to do  2   easier to maintain and less risk with  1

User · Answer

This is an issue of upbringing   If somewhere in your educational or professional career you spent time feeding and caring for databases  or worked closely with talented folks who did   then the fundamental tenets of entities and relationships are well-ingrained in your thought process   Among those rudiments is how when why to specify keys in your database  primary  foreign and perhaps alternate    It s second nature   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   Most everyone was taught when they were kids that brushing your teeth was important   Can you get by without it   Sure  but somewhere down the line you ll have less teeth available than you could have if you had brushed after every meal   If moms and dads were responsible enough to cover database design as well as oral hygiene  we wouldn t be having this conversation   -

User · Answer

I have to second most of the comments here  Foreign Keys are necessary items to ensure that you have data with integrity   The different options for ON DELETE and ON UPDATE will allow you to get around some of the  down falls  that people mention here regarding their use   I find that in 99  of all my projects I will have FK s to enforce the integrity of the data  however  there are those rare occasions where I have clients that MUST keep their old data  regardless of how bad it is    but then I spend a lot of time writing code that goes in to only get the valid data anyway  so it becomes pointless

User · Answer

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

User · Answer

To me  if you want to go by the ACID standards  it is critical to have foreign keys to ensure referential integrity

User · Answer

There are no good reasons not to use them    unless orphaned rows aren t a big deal to you I guess

User · Answer

imphasing - this is exactly the kind of mindset that causes maintenance nightmares   Why oh why would you ignore declarative referential integrity  where the data can be guaranteed to be at least consistent  in favour of so called  software enforcement  which is a weak preventative measure at best

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint   You can use triggers to have cascading deletes   If you chose your primary key unwisely  then changing that value becomes even more complex   For example  if I have the PK of my  customers  table as the person s name  and make that key a FK in the  orders  table   if the customer wants to change his name  then it is a royal pain     but that is just shoddy database design   I believe the advantages in using fireign keys outweighs any supposed disadvantages

User · Answer

In DB2  if MQTs  Materialized Query Tables  are used  foreign key constraints are required for the optimizer to choose the right plan for any given query  Since they contain the cardinality information  the optimizer uses the metadata heavily to use a MQT or not

User · Answer

I have heard this argument too - from people who forgot to put an index on their foreign keys and then complained that certain operations were slow  because constraint checking could take advantage of any index   So to sum up  There is no good reason not to use foreign keys  All modern databases support cascaded deletes  so

User · Answer

Additional Reason to use Foreign Keys  - Allows greater reuse of a database  Additional Reason to NOT use Foreign Keys  - You are trying to lock-in a customer into your tool by reducing reuse

User · Answer

I know only Oracle databases  no other ones  and I can tell that Foreign Keys are essential for maintaining data integrity  Prior to inserting data  a data structure needs to be made  and be made correctlty  When that is done - and thus all primary AND foreign keys are created - the work is done    Meaning   orphaned rows   No  Never seen that in my life  Unless a bad programmer forgot the foreign key  or if he implemented that on another level  Both are - in context of Oracle - huge mistakes  which will lead to data duplication  orphan data  and thus   data corruption  I can t imagine a database without FK enforced  It looks like chaos to me  It s a bit like the Unix permission system   imagine that everybody is root  Think of the chaos   Foreign Keys are essential  just like Primary Keys  It s like saying   what if we removing Primary Keys   Well  total chaos is going to happen  That s what  You may not move the primary or foreign key responsibility to the programming level  it must be at the data level   Drawbacks   Yes  absolutely   Because on insert  a lot more checks are going to be happening  But  if data integrity is more important than performance  it s a no-brainer  The problem with performance on Oracle is more related to indexes  which come with PK and FK s

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint    It s important to remember that the SQL standard defines actions that are taken when a foreign key is deleted or updated  The ones I know of are    ON DELETE RESTRICT - Prevents any rows in the other table that have keys in this column from being deleted   This is what Ken Ray described above  ON DELETE CASCADE - If a row in the other table is deleted  delete any rows in this table that reference it  ON DELETE SET DEFAULT - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it to the column s default  ON DELETE SET NULL - If a row in the other table is deleted  set any foreign keys referencing it in this table to null  ON DELETE NO ACTION - This foreign key only marks that it is a foreign key  namely for use in OR mappers    These same actions also apply to ON UPDATE   The default seems to depend on which sql server you re using

User · Answer

Like many things  it s a tradeoff   It s a question of where you want to do the work to verify the data integrity    1  use a foreign key  a single point to configure for a table  feature is already implemented  tested  proven to work    2  leave it to the users of the database  possible multiple users apps updating the same table  s  meaning more potential points of failure and increased complexity in testing    It s more efficient for the database to do  2   easier to maintain and less risk with  1

User · Answer

Quite often we receive the errors with FK constraints Cannot add or update a child row  a foreign key constraint fails Suppose there are two tables inventory source and contract lines  and we are referring inventory source id in contract lines from inventory source and suppose we want to delete record from inventory source  and the record is already present in contract lines or we want to delete the PK column from Base table  we get errors for FK constraints  we can avoid it using the steps jotted below   CREATE TABLE inventory source   inventory source id int 11  NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT  display name varchar 40  NOT NULL  state id int 11  NOT NULL  PRIMARY KEY  inventory source id   KEY state id  state id   CONSTRAINT ba inventory source state fk FOREIGN KEY  state id  REFERENCES   ba state  state id    ENGINE InnoDB AUTO INCREMENT 3 DEFAULT CHARSET utf8   CREATE TABLE contract lines  contract line id int 11  NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT  inventory source id int 11  NULL   PRIMARY KEY  contract line id   UNIQUE KEY contract line id  contract line id   KEY AI contract line id  contract line id   KEY contract lines inventory source fk  inventory source id   CONSTRAINT contract lines inventory source fk FOREIGN KEY        inventory source id  REFERENCES ba inventory source  inventory source id    ENGINE InnoDB AUTO INCREMENT 135 DEFAULT CHARSET utf8     We can overcome it using the following steps -   Delete or update the row from the inventory source will  automatically delete or update the matching rows in the contract lines table and this is known as cascade delete or update  Another way of doing it is  setting the column i e inventory source id   in the contract lines table to NULL  when a record corresponding to it is deleted in the inventory source table  We can restrict the parent table for delete or update in other words one can reject the delete or update operation for the inventory source table  Attempt to delete or update a primary key value will not be permitted to proceed if there is a related foreign key value in the referenced table

User · Answer

I can see a few reasons to use foreign keys  Orphaned rows  as someone mentioned  are annoying  but I never use them either  With a relatively sane DB schema  I don t think they are 100  needed  Constraints are good  but enforcing them via software is a better method  I think   Alex

User · Answer

I also think that foreign keys are a necessity in most databases   The only drawback  besides the performance hit that comes with having enforced consistence  is that having a foreign key allows people to write code that assumes there is a functional foreign key   That should never be allowed   For example  I ve seen people write code that inserts into the referenced table and then attempts inserts into the referencing table without verifying the first insert was successful   If the foreign key is removed at a later time  that results in an inconsistent database   You also don t have the option of assuming a specific behavior on update or delete   You still need to write your code to do what you want regardless of whether there is a foreign key present   If you assume deletes are cascaded when they are not  your deletes will fail   If you assume updates to the referenced columns are propogated to the referencing rows when they are not  your updates will fail   For the purposes of writing code  you might as well not have those features   If those features are turned on  then your code will emulate them anyway and you ll lose a little performance   So  the summary      Foreign keys are essential if you need a consistent database   Foreign keys should never be assumed to be present or functional in code that you write

User · Answer

Verifying foreign key constraints takes some CPU time  so some folks omit foreign keys to get some extra performance

User · Answer

I have to second most of the comments here  Foreign Keys are necessary items to ensure that you have data with integrity   The different options for ON DELETE and ON UPDATE will allow you to get around some of the  down falls  that people mention here regarding their use   I find that in 99  of all my projects I will have FK s to enforce the integrity of the data  however  there are those rare occasions where I have clients that MUST keep their old data  regardless of how bad it is    but then I spend a lot of time writing code that goes in to only get the valid data anyway  so it becomes pointless

User · Answer

I always thought it was lazy not to use them  I was taught it should always be done  But then  I didnt listen to Joel s discussion  He may have had a good reason  I don t know

User · Answer

I always thought it was lazy not to use them  I was taught it should always be done  But then  I didnt listen to Joel s discussion  He may have had a good reason  I don t know

User · Answer

There are no good reasons not to use them    unless orphaned rows aren t a big deal to you I guess

User · Answer

I have heard this argument too - from people who forgot to put an index on their foreign keys and then complained that certain operations were slow  because constraint checking could take advantage of any index   So to sum up  There is no good reason not to use foreign keys  All modern databases support cascaded deletes  so

User · Answer

imphasing - this is exactly the kind of mindset that causes maintenance nightmares   Why oh why would you ignore declarative referential integrity  where the data can be guaranteed to be at least consistent  in favour of so called  software enforcement  which is a weak preventative measure at best

User · Answer

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

User · Answer

I agree with the previous answers in that they are useful to mantain data consistency  However  there was an interesting post by Jeff Atwood some weeks ago that discussed the pros and cons of normalized and consistent data    In a few words  a denormalized database can be faster when handling huge amounts of data  and you may not care about precise consistency depending on the application  but it forces you to be much more careful when dealing with data  as the DB won t be

User · Answer

There are no good reasons not to use them    unless orphaned rows aren t a big deal to you I guess

User · Answer

I m sure there are plenty of applications where you can get away with it  but it s not the best idea   You can t always count on your application to properly manage your database  and frankly managing the database should not be of very much concern to your application     If you are using a relational database then it seems you ought to have some relationships defined in it   Unfortunately this attitude  you don t need foreign keys  seems to be embraced by a lot of application developers who would rather not be bothered with silly things like data integrity  but need to because their companies don t have dedicated database developers    Usually in databases put together by these types you are lucky just to have primary keys

User · Answer

Bigger question is  would you drive with a blindfold on  That   s how it is if you develop a system without referential constraints  Keep in mind  that business requirements change  application design changes  respective logical assumptions in the code changes  logic itself can be refactored  and so on  In general  constraints in databases are put in place under contemporary logical assumptions  seemingly correct for particular set of logical assertions and assumptions    Through the lifecycle of an application  referential and data checks constraints police data collection via the application  especially when new requirements drive logical application changes   To the subject of this listing - a foreign key does not by itself  improve performance   nor does it  degrade performance  significantly from a standpoint of real-time transaction processing system  However  there is an aggregated cost for constraint checking in HIGH volume  batch  system  So  here is the difference  real-time vs  batch transaction process  batch processing - where aggreated cost  incured by constraint checks  of a sequentially processed batch poses a performance hit   In a well designed system  data consistency checks would be done  before  processing a batch through  nevertheless  there is a cost associated here also   therefore  foreign key constraint checks are not required during load time  In fact all constraints  including foreign key  should be temporarily disabled till the batch is processed   QUERY PERFORMANCE - if tables are joined on foreign keys  be cognizant of the fact that foreign key columns are NOT INDEXED  though the respective primary key is indexed by definition   By indexing a foreign key  for that matter  by indexing any key  and joining tables on indexed helps with better performances  not by joining on non-indexed key with foreign key constraint on it   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

User · Answer

Update  I always use foreign keys now  My answer to the objection  they complicated testing  is  write your unit tests so they don t need the database at all  Any tests that use the database should use it properly  and that includes foreign keys  If the setup is painful  find a less painful way to do the setup      Foreign keys complicate automated testing  Suppose you re using foreign keys  You re writing an automated test that says  when I update a financial account  it should save a record of the transaction   In this test  you re only concerned with two tables  accounts and transactions   However  accounts has a foreign key to contracts  and contracts has a fk to clients  and clients has a fk to cities  and cities has a fk to states   Now the database will not allow you to run your test without setting up data in four tables that aren t related to your test   There are at least two possible perspectives on this     That s a good thing  your test should be realistic  and those data constraints will exist in production    That s a bad thing  you should be able to unit test pieces of the system without involving other pieces  You can add integration tests for the system as a whole     It may also be possible to temporarily turn off foreign key checks while running tests  MySQL  at least  supports this

User · Answer

I always use them  but then I make databases for financial systems   The database is the critical part of the application   If the data in a financial database isn t totally accurate then it really doesn t matter how much effort you put into your code front-end design   You re just wasting your time   There s also the fact that multiple systems generally need to interface directly with the database - from other systems that just read data out  Crystal Reports  to systems that insert data  not necessarily using an API I ve designed  it may be written by a dull-witted manager who has just discovered VBScript and has the SA password for the SQL box    If the database isn t as idiot-proof as it can possibly be  well - bye bye database   If your data is important  then yes  use foreign keys  create a suite of stored procedures to interact with the data  and make the toughest DB you can   If your data isn t important  why are you making a database to begin with

User · Answer

I agree with the previous answers in that they are useful to mantain data consistency  However  there was an interesting post by Jeff Atwood some weeks ago that discussed the pros and cons of normalized and consistent data    In a few words  a denormalized database can be faster when handling huge amounts of data  and you may not care about precise consistency depending on the application  but it forces you to be much more careful when dealing with data  as the DB won t be

User · Answer

There s one good reason not to use them     If you don t understand their role or how to use them   In the wrong situations  foreign key constraints can lead to waterfall replication of accidents  If somebody removes the wrong record  undoing it can become a mammoth task     Also  conversely  when you need to remove something  if poorly designed  constraints can cause all sorts of locks that prevent you

User · Answer

I ll echo what Dmitriy said  but adding on a point   I worked on a batch billing system that needed to insert large sets of rows on 30  tables   We weren t allowed to do a data pump  Oracle  so we had to do bulk inserts   Those tables had foreign keys on them  but we had already ensured that they were not breaking any relationships   Before insert  we disable the foreign key constraints so that Oracle doesn t take forever doing the inserts   After the insert is successful  we re-enable the constraints   PS  In a large database with many foreign keys and child row data for a single record  sometimes foreign keys can be bad  and you may want to disallow cascading deletes   For us in the billing system  it would take too long and be too taxing on the database if we did cascading deletes  so we just mark the record as bad with a field on the main driver  parent  table

User · Answer

I m sure there are plenty of applications where you can get away with it  but it s not the best idea   You can t always count on your application to properly manage your database  and frankly managing the database should not be of very much concern to your application     If you are using a relational database then it seems you ought to have some relationships defined in it   Unfortunately this attitude  you don t need foreign keys  seems to be embraced by a lot of application developers who would rather not be bothered with silly things like data integrity  but need to because their companies don t have dedicated database developers    Usually in databases put together by these types you are lucky just to have primary keys

User · Answer

Reasons to use Foreign Keys    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   Reasons not to use Foreign Keys    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  -    I think  I am not certain   that most established databases provide a way to specify a foreign key that is not enforced  and is simply a bit of metadata   Since non-enforcement wipes out every reason not to use FKs  you should probably go that route if any of the reasons in the second section apply

User · Answer

Additional Reason to use Foreign Keys  - Allows greater reuse of a database  Additional Reason to NOT use Foreign Keys  - You are trying to lock-in a customer into your tool by reducing reuse

User · Answer

They can make deleting records more cumbersome - you can t delete the  master  record where there are records in other tables where foreign keys would violate that constraint   You can use triggers to have cascading deletes   If you chose your primary key unwisely  then changing that value becomes even more complex   For example  if I have the PK of my  customers  table as the person s name  and make that key a FK in the  orders  table   if the customer wants to change his name  then it is a royal pain     but that is just shoddy database design   I believe the advantages in using fireign keys outweighs any supposed disadvantages

User · Answer

Reasons to use Foreign Keys    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   Reasons not to use Foreign Keys    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  -    I think  I am not certain   that most established databases provide a way to specify a foreign key that is not enforced  and is simply a bit of metadata   Since non-enforcement wipes out every reason not to use FKs  you should probably go that route if any of the reasons in the second section apply

User · Answer

Many of the people answering here get too hung up on the importance of referential integrity implemented via referential constraints  Working on large databases with referential integrity just does not perform well  Oracle seems particularly bad at cascading deletes  My rule of thumb is that applications should never update the database directly and should be via a stored procedure  This keeps the code base inside the database  and means that the database maintains its integrity   Where many applications may be accessing the database  problems do arise because of referential integrity constraints but this is down to a control   There is a wider issue too in that  application developers may have very different requirements that database developers may not necessarily be that familiar with

User · Answer

I have heard this argument too - from people who forgot to put an index on their foreign keys and then complained that certain operations were slow  because constraint checking could take advantage of any index   So to sum up  There is no good reason not to use foreign keys  All modern databases support cascaded deletes  so

User · Answer

I always use them  but then I make databases for financial systems   The database is the critical part of the application   If the data in a financial database isn t totally accurate then it really doesn t matter how much effort you put into your code front-end design   You re just wasting your time   There s also the fact that multiple systems generally need to interface directly with the database - from other systems that just read data out  Crystal Reports  to systems that insert data  not necessarily using an API I ve designed  it may be written by a dull-witted manager who has just discovered VBScript and has the SA password for the SQL box    If the database isn t as idiot-proof as it can possibly be  well - bye bye database   If your data is important  then yes  use foreign keys  create a suite of stored procedures to interact with the data  and make the toughest DB you can   If your data isn t important  why are you making a database to begin with

User · Answer

Reasons to use Foreign Keys    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   Reasons not to use Foreign Keys    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  -    I think  I am not certain   that most established databases provide a way to specify a foreign key that is not enforced  and is simply a bit of metadata   Since non-enforcement wipes out every reason not to use FKs  you should probably go that route if any of the reasons in the second section apply

User · Answer

I ll echo what Dmitriy said  but adding on a point   I worked on a batch billing system that needed to insert large sets of rows on 30  tables   We weren t allowed to do a data pump  Oracle  so we had to do bulk inserts   Those tables had foreign keys on them  but we had already ensured that they were not breaking any relationships   Before insert  we disable the foreign key constraints so that Oracle doesn t take forever doing the inserts   After the insert is successful  we re-enable the constraints   PS  In a large database with many foreign keys and child row data for a single record  sometimes foreign keys can be bad  and you may want to disallow cascading deletes   For us in the billing system  it would take too long and be too taxing on the database if we did cascading deletes  so we just mark the record as bad with a field on the main driver  parent  table

User · Answer

One good principle of data structure design is to ensure that every attribute of a table or object be subject to a well-understood constraint  This is important because if you or your program can count on valid data in the database  you are less likely to have program defects caused by bad data  You also spend less time writing code to handle error conditions  and you are more likely to write error-handling code up front    In many cases these constraints can be defined at compile-time  in which case you can write a filter to ensure that the attribute always falls within range  or the attempt to save the attribute fails    However  in many cases these constraints can change at run-time  For example  you may have a  cars  table that has  colour  as an attribute which initially takes on the values  say  of  red    green  and  blue   It is possible during the execution of the program to add valid colours to that initial list  and new  cars  added may take on any colour in the up-to-date list of colours  Furthermore  you usually want this updated list of colours to survive a program restart    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    If you don t use foreign keys for these requirements  you must write software to manage the list  look valid entries  save it to disk  structure the data efficiently if the list is large  ensure that any updates to the list don t corrupt the list file  provide serial access to the list in case there are multiple readers and or writers  and so on  i e  You need to implement a lot of RDBMS functionality

User · Answer

I can see a few reasons to use foreign keys  Orphaned rows  as someone mentioned  are annoying  but I never use them either  With a relatively sane DB schema  I don t think they are 100  needed  Constraints are good  but enforcing them via software is a better method  I think   Alex

User · Answer

Before adding a record  check that a corresponding record exists in another table   is business logic    Here are some reasons you don t want this in the database     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

User · Answer

I ll echo what Dmitriy said  but adding on a point   I worked on a batch billing system that needed to insert large sets of rows on 30  tables   We weren t allowed to do a data pump  Oracle  so we had to do bulk inserts   Those tables had foreign keys on them  but we had already ensured that they were not breaking any relationships   Before insert  we disable the foreign key constraints so that Oracle doesn t take forever doing the inserts   After the insert is successful  we re-enable the constraints   PS  In a large database with many foreign keys and child row data for a single record  sometimes foreign keys can be bad  and you may want to disallow cascading deletes   For us in the billing system  it would take too long and be too taxing on the database if we did cascading deletes  so we just mark the record as bad with a field on the main driver  parent  table

User · Answer

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    Its better to avoid FKs but its risk has to be handled by programmers

User · Answer

I also think that foreign keys are a necessity in most databases   The only drawback  besides the performance hit that comes with having enforced consistence  is that having a foreign key allows people to write code that assumes there is a functional foreign key   That should never be allowed   For example  I ve seen people write code that inserts into the referenced table and then attempts inserts into the referencing table without verifying the first insert was successful   If the foreign key is removed at a later time  that results in an inconsistent database   You also don t have the option of assuming a specific behavior on update or delete   You still need to write your code to do what you want regardless of whether there is a foreign key present   If you assume deletes are cascaded when they are not  your deletes will fail   If you assume updates to the referenced columns are propogated to the referencing rows when they are not  your updates will fail   For the purposes of writing code  you might as well not have those features   If those features are turned on  then your code will emulate them anyway and you ll lose a little performance   So  the summary      Foreign keys are essential if you need a consistent database   Foreign keys should never be assumed to be present or functional in code that you write

User · Answer

I m sure there are plenty of applications where you can get away with it  but it s not the best idea   You can t always count on your application to properly manage your database  and frankly managing the database should not be of very much concern to your application     If you are using a relational database then it seems you ought to have some relationships defined in it   Unfortunately this attitude  you don t need foreign keys  seems to be embraced by a lot of application developers who would rather not be bothered with silly things like data integrity  but need to because their companies don t have dedicated database developers    Usually in databases put together by these types you are lucky just to have primary keys

User · Answer

I also think that foreign keys are a necessity in most databases   The only drawback  besides the performance hit that comes with having enforced consistence  is that having a foreign key allows people to write code that assumes there is a functional foreign key   That should never be allowed   For example  I ve seen people write code that inserts into the referenced table and then attempts inserts into the referencing table without verifying the first insert was successful   If the foreign key is removed at a later time  that results in an inconsistent database   You also don t have the option of assuming a specific behavior on update or delete   You still need to write your code to do what you want regardless of whether there is a foreign key present   If you assume deletes are cascaded when they are not  your deletes will fail   If you assume updates to the referenced columns are propogated to the referencing rows when they are not  your updates will fail   For the purposes of writing code  you might as well not have those features   If those features are turned on  then your code will emulate them anyway and you ll lose a little performance   So  the summary      Foreign keys are essential if you need a consistent database   Foreign keys should never be assumed to be present or functional in code that you write

[database] What's wrong with foreign keys?

Examples related to database

Examples related to database-design

Examples related to foreign-keys

Examples related to referential-integrity

Examples related to data-integrity