this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
123 points (98.4% liked)

Programming

17495 readers
46 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 58 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They should make the versions UUIDs instead of integers so that we don't make assumptions about their ordinal relationships.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Or maybe an abbreviated hash of the text of their specifications?

[–] RonSijm 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yea, should have been V-00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000008 instead

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Yes and no. They had to put the version identifier somewhere to avoid sorting problems or parsing problems, so I think that putting somewhat in the middle is a good tradeoff.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A lot of people in this thread who don't fully understand how UUIDs work...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

You're not kidding.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago

I didn't even know it was an ietf standard. Let aline there were versions. Apparently it's only since may this year that there are 8 versions. Before it were only 5.

[–] Zikeji 11 points 4 months ago (4 children)
[–] ChairmanMeow 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

At the company I work at we use UUIDv7 but base63 encoded I believe. This gives you fairly short ids (16 chars iirc, it includes lowercase letters) that are also sortable.

[–] RonSijm 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

base63? I'd guess you'd mean base64?

Anyways, doesn't that fuck with performance?

I'm using this in production: RT.Comb - That still generates GUIDs, but generates them sequential over time. Gives you both the benefits of sequential ids, and also the benefits of sequential keys. I haven't had any issues or collisions with that

[–] ChairmanMeow 2 points 4 months ago

It's Base62 actually, misremembered that. It's to avoid some special characters iirc. And no, performance is fine.

We're using this: https://github.com/TheArchitectDev/Architect.Identities

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'll be borrowing that little trick

[–] ChairmanMeow 2 points 4 months ago

https://github.com/TheArchitectDev/Architect.Identities

Here's the package one of our former developers created. It has some advantages and some drawbacks, but overall it's been quite a treat to work with!

[–] bitfucker 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I prefer CUID

Just to clarify: Yes, I do know not all use cases are appropriate for CUID. But in general when generating ID, I'd use CUID2

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I vote for nanoid.