uuid6-ietf-draft
spec
uuid6-ietf-draft | spec | |
---|---|---|
7 | 62 | |
182 | 8,671 | |
1.1% | 1.4% | |
5.7 | 0.0 | |
6 months ago | 4 months ago | |
HTML | ||
- | GNU General Public License v3.0 only |
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.
uuid6-ietf-draft
-
The UX of UUIDs
https://github.com/uuid6/uuid6-ietf-draft/issues/27
-
This is very cool! I love this solution for ID’s what do you all think?
Why not UUIDv7?
-
UUIDs Are Bad for Database Index Performance, enter UUID7!
What if a new UUID version could be designed that would take the randomness of UUID4 and combine it with a timestamp prefix? This would make the UUID increase overall, but not locally – due to the random postfix. The random part ensures uniqueness when a high generation rate is necessary and also makes the UUIDs hard to predict – it’s not possible to guess the previous, or next UUID. It’s fairly simple to devise a custom UUID scheme, but fortunately, there is a new Internet-Draft (at the time of writing) defining new pseudo-sequential UUID versions that aim to solve exactly this issue: draft-peabody-dispatch-new-uuid-format-04. The current state and progress can be viewed at IETF Datatracker.
-
Understanding UUIDs, ULIDs and String Representations
Brad Peabody did the original -00 draft, which was discussed as an FYI at an IEFT meeting in March 2020. See [1], around 50 lines from the bottom.
Kyzer Davis has since submitted two further revisions -01 and -02 in April and October 2021. See history in [2].
The current -02 draft is due to expire in April 2022. Presumably Kyzer Davis will try to get it discussed before then.
The GitHub repo tracking these drafts is https://github.com/uuid6/uuid6-ietf-draft/.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/materials/minutes-1...
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peabody-dispatch-new-...
- UUID version 7. It's binary sortable and has many other advantages. Created specifically for modern distributed systems. IETF draft is published, they mid tweaking before publishing v3 draft.
-
New UUID Formats – IETF Draft
At the moment anyway, that XML link won't render per an XML parsing error. For anyone who wants a quick look at what these XML docs look like here's one for UUID6 [0].
[0] https://github.com/uuid6/uuid6-ietf-draft/blob/master/draft-...
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
What are some alternatives?
uuid7 - UUID version 7, which are time-sortable (following the Peabody RFC4122 draft)
dynamodb-onetable - DynamoDB access and management for one table designs with NodeJS
Ulid - Fast .NET C# Implementation of ULID for .NET and Unity.
kuuid - K-sortable UUID - roughly time-sortable unique id generator
ulid-mssql - Implementation of ULID generator For Microsoft SQL Server
python-ksuid - A pure-Python KSUID implementation
ksuid - K-Sortable Globally Unique IDs
ulid-lite - Generate unique, yet sortable identifiers
uulid.go - ULID-UUID compatibility library for generating and parsing ULIDs.
shortuuid.rb - Convert UUIDs & numbers into space efficient and URL-safe Base62 strings, or any other alphabet.
ulid - Universally Unique Lexicographically Sortable Identifier (ULID) in Python 3