spec VS python-ksuid

Can use ULID to "fix" some issues

https://github.com/ulid/spec

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

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.

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.

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.

Homepage: https://www.svix.com

It's really fast, it makes writing secure and correct code easier, it's easier to deploy and distribute (one static binary), and it's a lot more fun. :)

Webhooks are really cool, and I absolutely love what they enable. They make the web compose-able, interconnected, and enable people to automate a lot of their work! Our goal is to make them easy, reliable, and consistent, so that more services offer them and they are easier to consume.

I'd love to hear your feedback! We've incorporated most of the comments we got the last time[0] (thanks again everyone!), and we would love to know how we can improve the product further. Got any suggestions?

Homepage: https://www.svix.com

Repo: https://github.com/svix/svix-webhooks/

Docs: https://docs.svix.com/

API reference: https://api.svix.com/

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26399672

I wasn't going to post it here because it feels a bit small for a show HN, but then I figured: why not. :)

It's a pure Rust implementation of Segement's KSUID, and I created this library while working on Svix[0].

I haven't written any Rust for a while, so even though I have written quite a bit of Rust code in the past (see Etebase[1]), I'm a bit rusty (no pun intended).

Anyhow, I just wanted to share, and I'm hoping to get some feedback if you have any. :)

Code and examples: https://github.com/svix/rust-ksuid/

P.S, the package is tested for compatibility against the reference Go implementation.

[0] https://www.svix.com

I created this library while working on Svix. We have a highly scalable and distributed environment there, which is where KSUIDs really shine.

These reasons are exactly why we started Svix[1] (we do webhooks as a service). I wish we existed to serve you guys back when you started working on it. :)

[1] https://www.svix.com

Hey everyone, my name is Tom, and I'm the founder of Svix (https://www.svix.com) - previously known as Diahook. Svix makes it easy for developers to send webhooks from their service using a simple API. Think Twilio or SendGrid but for webhooks.

Webhooks are how servers notify each other of events, so they are a key component of many APIs such as Stripe, Shopify, Slack, Dropbox and Github.

Code and examples: https://github.com/svixhq/python-ksuid/