3 ms·
I use crockford 32 to _represent_ my UUIDs, but they are obviously stored as binary. Is the only problem with UUIDs that sometimes they get stored as strings?
by pkulak 5y ago
I use crockford 32 to _represent_ my UUIDs, but they are obviously stored as binary. Is the only problem with UUIDs that sometimes they get stored as strings?
The only issue I've had with UUIDs is when they don't sort in increasing chronological order. RDBMSs don't appreciate high insert loads into random points in the index. Take care of that, however, and they're a treat.
- paulryanrogers 5y agoULIDs or time prefixed UUIDs are other options.
- mhoad 5y agoYeah I seem to recall he also mentioned that as an approach.
- staticassertion 5y agoThe linked article discusses the issues - the storage size when encoded as char, as 16byte values, as well as the impact on read/write locality.
- dpark 5y agoWhere does it discuss any of this? It compares base 10/16/32/64. There’s no mention at all of UUIDs or GUIDs. (Or do you mean the original article, rather than the linked Crockford article?)
- staticassertion 5y agoI mean the original.