4 ms·
How can this be unexpected? Isn't this what Percona discussed for MySQL already several years ago? Or am I missing something?
by pachico 3y ago
How can this be unexpected?
Isn't this what Percona discussed for MySQL already several years ago?
Or am I missing something?
- bguebert 3y agoThey suggest to use UUID v7 at the end for more sequential keys. Maybe that's the new part since v7 is relatively recent.
- mattmanser 3y agoMSSQL has had sequential GUIDs for over a decade to solve this very problem, surprised it wasn't done sooner.
- evntdrvn 3y agotheir format is pretty funky though lol
- indymike 3y ago> How can this be unexpected? If you routinely work with junior developers this will come up because UUID4 seems miraculous at first. There's always a bit of surprise when the question gets asked about why we have so many sequential keys when we could just use UUID4...
- Tehnix 3y agoThe amount of people with actual experience scaling databases is very small compared to the amount of e.g. Backend Engineers that end up implementing the solutions. I think a root cause is that there’s almost never a case for preferring UUIDv4 over ULID/UUIDv7, but we still see almost all learning material reach for the former. So people only find out once they have a table that exhibits weird/low performance and suddenly need to google for specific performance problems they’ve never encountered before. Similarly, efficiently using indexes is also a very common thing I see people not know much about, since with SQL “everything performs well until it doesn’t” (i.e. you reach scale) :)