Random identifiers are poorly compressible

Re:Random identifiers are poorly compressible by willis936 on Sunday September 12, 2021 @08:24AM (#28500515)

Computer index (top 32 bits) + entry index (bottom 32 bits)

Adding more things such as time stamp just adds entropy without being useful. The indexes should start at 0 and count up. The computer index is something that should be handed out once every time a computer is brought in.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Random identifiers are poorly compressible by mjburgess on Sunday September 12, 2021 @08:45AM (#28500642)

> " First, most of the existing UUID versions such as UUIDv4 have poor database index locality. Meaning new values created in succession are not close to each other in the index and thus require inserts to be performed at random locations. The negative performance effects of which on common structures used for this (B-tree and its variants) can be dramatic. As such newly inserted values SHOULD be time-ordered to address this."

-- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peabody-dispatch...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Random identifiers are poorly compressible by willis936 on Sunday September 12, 2021 @08:49AM (#28500672)

Then why not map timestamps into a chronological index either on-the-fly or some time later?

[ Parent | on HN ]