65
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Imacat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 months ago

UUIDs make great primary keys in some applications. If you generated 100 trillion UUID4s, there’s about a 1 in a billion chance of finding a duplicate. Thats usually good enough for my databases.

The issue here was that they used a single UUID instead of generating a new one for each record.

[-] mawhrin@awful.systems 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

they also stored this thing as a fucking string. looking up strings is costly.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

This sounds like a case of premature optimization to me. We have plenty of databases using strings as Ids and they're all more than fast enough for any of our purposes. And that's with considerable volume going through.

I've never seen bad performance from string ids be an issue.

[-] sinedpick@awful.systems 14 points 10 months ago

so we're calling "not doing pointless unnecessary work" premature optimization now? cool cool

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 13 points 10 months ago

Making me learn how to do things the right way is premature optimization

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (42 replies)
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
65 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1777 readers
182 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS