Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • 2
    "He's removed them from existing tables to change things and it's caused data corruption [...] so he'd rather not use them." - I don't get it. The FKs were removed, the inevitable data corruption showed up and that's why he doesn't want to use them? Commented Aug 20, 2014 at 15:28
  • While the title question is legitimate, I think the idea behind it (proving you are right) and the way it is presented is a bit unoptimal. Nobody on this site will tell you that referential integrity is wrong and that you shouldn't use foreign keys. Also, it is not difficult to handle them, referential integrity can be disabled at any time in order to perform DMLs. I refuse to believe that your boss told you that they are plainly bad unless he has never used a database. Commented Aug 20, 2014 at 15:30
  • Actually, the people that I have seen not using them for a custom developed application were either poor developers or had to implement them at application side because MySQL implementation was limited (too little constraints or extra locking). Commented Aug 20, 2014 at 15:34
  • @a_horse_with_no_name Either he didn't explain his point properly, I misunderstood it or it's a flawed argument, but that's the impression I got as well. jynus I also refuse to believe that he told me they are bad (more that they are inconvenient), considering he's got more experience as a developer than I do. Commented Aug 20, 2014 at 15:41
  • Interesting enough I never see this discussion when people are using Postgres, Oracle, DB2 or SQL Server. It's alyways MySQL where this discussion comes up. Commented Aug 20, 2014 at 15:43