News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common. Parent comment

Re:Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common by willis936 on Friday July 21, 2023 @07:13AM (#36812437)
One benefit of keeping it separate is that you can choose the precision of the timestamp necessary. "Millisecond precision" is arbitrary and commonly insufficient.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common by preseinger on Friday July 21, 2023 @02:09PM (#36817299)
it's commonly totally sufficient for IDs to represent a rough sort order

millisecond precision is great for a lot of use cases

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common by willis936 on Friday July 21, 2023 @02:26PM (#36817537)
I didn't say that it wasn't. Hell even ms is too precise for many use cases (usually where date is used instead).

What I said was that it's useful to be able to select timestamp precision independently of UUID implementation. One size that fits all fits none best.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common by dtech on Friday July 21, 2023 @03:27PM (#36818374)
Lucky for you, they also define UUIDv8 as a free-for-all where you can do whatever you want, and nanosecond precision is one of the examples given in the RFC.
[ Parent | on HN ]