spec
ulid
Our great sponsors
spec | ulid | |
---|---|---|
62 | 11 | |
8,627 | 4,108 | |
2.4% | 2.0% | |
0.0 | 4.5 | |
3 months ago | 13 days ago | |
Go | ||
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
spec
-
The UX of UUIDs
Can use ULID to "fix" some issues
https://github.com/ulid/spec
- Ulid: Universally Unique Lexicographically Sortable Identifier
-
Ask HN: Is it acceptable to use a date as a primary key for a table in Postgres?
Both ULID and UUID v7 have a time code component which can be extracted.
It would be best for indexing to store the actual value in binary, though not strictly necessary as these later UUID standards (unlike conventional UUIDs) use time code prefixes (so indexing clusters.)
https://uuid7.com/
https://github.com/ulid/spec
-
Bye Sequence, Hello UUIDv7
UUIDv7 is a nice idea, and should probably be what people use by default instead of UUIDv4.
For the curious:
* UUIDv4 are 128 bits long, 122 bits of which are random, with 6 bits used for the version. Traditionally displayed as 32 hex characters with 4 dashes, so 36 alphanumeric characters, and compatible with anything that expects a UUID.
* UUIDv7 are 128 bits long, 48 bits encode a unix timestamp with millisecond precision, 6 bits are for the version, and 74 bits are random. You're expected to display them the same as other UUIDs, and should be compatible with basically anything that expects a UUID. (Would be a very odd system that parses a UUID and throws an error because it doesn't recognise v7, but I guess it could happen, in theory?)
* ULIDs (https://github.com/ulid/spec) are 128 bits long, 48 bits encode a unix timestamp with millisecond precision, 80 bits are random. You're expected to display them in Crockford's base32, so 26 alphanumeric characters. Compatible with almost everything that expects a UUID (since they're the right length). Spec has some dumb quirks if followed literally but thankfully they mostly don't hurt things.
* KSUIDs (https://github.com/segmentio/ksuid) are 160 bits long, 32 bits encode a timestamp with second precision and a custom epoch of May 13th, 2014, and 128 bits are random. You're expected to display them in base62, so 27 alphanumeric characters. Since they're a different length, they're not compatible with UUIDs.
I quite like KSUIDs; I think base62 is a smart choice. And while the timestamp portion is a trickier question, KSUIDs use 32 bits which, with second precision (more than good enough), means they won't overflow for well over a century. Whereas UUIDv7s use 48 bits, so even with millisecond precision (not needed) they won't overflow for something like 8000 years. We can argue whether 100 years us future proof enough (I'd argue it probably is), but 8000 years is just silly. Nobody will ever generate a compliant UUIDv7 with any of the first several bits aren't 0. The only downside to KSUIDs is the length isn't UUID compatible (and arguably, that they don't devote 6 bits to a compliant UUID version).
Still feels like there's room for improvement, but for now I think I'd always pick UUIDv7 over UUIDv4 unless there's an very specific reason not to.
-
50 years later, is Two-Phase Locking the best we can do?
I'd love for Postgres to adopt ULID as a first class variant of the same basic 128bit wide binary optimized column type they use for UUIDs, but I don't expect they will, while its "popular" its not likely popular enough to have support for them to maintain it in the long run... Also the smart money ahead of time would have been for the ULID spec to sacrifice a few data bits to leave the version specifying sections of the bit field layout unused in the ULID binary spec (https://github.com/ulid/spec#binary-layout-and-byte-order) for the sake of future compatibility with "proper" UUIDs... Performing one big bulk bitfield modification to a PostgreSQL column would have been much less painful than re-computing appropriate UUIDv7 (or UUIDv8s for some reason) and then having to perform a primary key update on every row in the table.
- FLaNK Stack Weekly for 12 September 2023
- You Don't Need UUID
- UUID Collision
-
Type-safe, K-sortable, globally unique identifier inspired by Stripe IDs
Many people had the same idea. For example ULID https://github.com/ulid/spec is more compact and stores the time so it is lexically ordered.
- ULID: Universally Unique Lexicographically Sortable Identifier
ulid
-
Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common
Our Go ULID package has millisecond precision + monotonic random bytes for disambiguation while preserving ordering within the same millisecond. https://github.com/oklog/ulid
-
Type-safe, K-sortable, globally unique identifier inspired by Stripe IDs
There is no "tests".
There is just a single test. Which only tests the decoding of a single known value. No encoding test.
Go has infrastructure for benchmarking and fuzzing. Use it!
Also, you took code from https://github.com/oklog/ulid/blob/main/ulid.go which has "Copyright 2016 The Oklog Authors" but this is not mentionned in your base32.go.
-
cmackenzie1/go-uuid: library for generating version 4 (random) and version 7 (time-ordered) UUIDs
maybe because of dependencies: https://github.com/oklog/ulid/blob/main/go.mod ??
- The most helpful Go Packages
-
UUIDs Are Bad for Database Index Performance, enter UUID7!
Universally Unique Lexicographically Sortable Identifier
-
Is it bad to use short (20 chars) random strings as primary keys?
I'm not concerned too much about the performance or the storage size at this stage. I've checked ulids before posting (more specifically https://github.com/oklog/ulid) but the only difference than a random string (especially if you use them with math.rand) is the timestamp prefix which makes them sortable, but I don't need that (users could use the internal SQLite rowid if they needed to sort by a primary key).
- UUIDs Are Popular, but Bad for Performance
-
Golang Base Project - A simple web app with user authentication
why are you using https://github.com/oklog/ulid to generate a cookie secret?
-
What are your favorite packages to use?
oklog/ulid to generate IDs. coreos/go-oidc for validating JWTs I get from auth. google/go-cmp for comparing structs in tests (unless the project is already using Testify). spf13/pflag because life's too short for Go's flag handling. getkin/kin-openapi for validating reqests/responses against my OpenAPI spec (in tests).
-
Keyset pagination using UUID v4 mongodb go
If you just want to roll with an off-the-shelf library, you can use ULID. There are tons of custom made *flake alternatives. If ULID doesn't fit your purposes, look for others.
What are some alternatives?
dynamodb-onetable - DynamoDB access and management for one table designs with NodeJS
nanoid - A tiny and fast Go unique string generator
uuid6-ietf-draft - Next Generation UUID Formats
xid - xid is a globally unique id generator thought for the web
kuuid - K-sortable UUID - roughly time-sortable unique id generator
gouid - Fast, dependable universally unique ids
python-ksuid - A pure-Python KSUID implementation
sno - Compact, sortable and fast unique IDs with embedded metadata.
ulid-lite - Generate unique, yet sortable identifiers
Monoton - Highly scalable, single/multi node, sortable, predictable and incremental unique id generator with zero allocation magic on the sequential generation
shortuuid.rb - Convert UUIDs & numbers into space efficient and URL-safe Base62 strings, or any other alphabet.
goflake - A highly scalable and serverless unique ID generator for use in distributed systems. Written in GoLang. Inspired by Twitters Snowflake.