Re: Primary keys and composite unique keys(basic question) - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: Primary keys and composite unique keys(basic question)
Date
Msg-id CAHyXU0xHS-t2x_J+_vLdNBr8=UDSj7WC0Aa61+=OcKWzXiBR7Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Primary keys and composite unique keys(basic question)  (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: Primary keys and composite unique keys(basic question)
List pgsql-general
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 3:40 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2021-04-01 at 21:28 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > I would never use UUIDS for keys though.
>
> That makes me curious for your reasons.
>
> I see the following disadvantages:
>
> - A UUID requires twice as much storage space as a bigint.
>
> - B-tree indexes are space optimized for inserting at the
>   rightmost leaf page, but UUIDs are random.
>
> - UUIDs are more expensive to generate.
>
> On the other hand, many processes trying to insert into
> the same index page might lead to contention.
>
> Is there anything I have missed?

It's a small thing, but UUIDs are absolutely not memorizable by
humans; they have zero semantic value.  Sequential numeric identifiers
are generally easier to transpose and the value gives some clues to
its age (of course, in security contexts this can be a downside).

Performance-wise, UUIDS are absolutely horrible for data at scale as
Tom rightly points out.  Everything is randomized, just awful.  There
are some alternate implementations of UUID that mitigate this but I've
never seen them used in the wild in actual code.

merlin



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Debugging leaking memory in Postgresql 13.2/Postgis 3.1
Next
From: Rob Sargent
Date:
Subject: Re: Primary keys and composite unique keys(basic question)