On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 08:47:20 GMT, Kieran Farrell <kfarr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> With the recent approval of UUIDv7 >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9562/), this PR aims to add a new >> static method UUID.timestampUUID() which constructs and returns a UUID in >> support of the new time generated UUID version. >> >> The specification requires embedding the current timestamp in milliseconds >> into the first bits 0–47. The version number in bits 48–51, bits 52–63 are >> available for sub-millisecond precision or for pseudorandom data. The >> variant is set in bits 64–65. The remaining bits 66–127 are free to use for >> more pseudorandom data or to employ a counter based approach for increased >> time percision >> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9562.html#name-uuid-version-7). >> >> The choice of implementation comes down to balancing the sensitivity level >> of being able to distingush UUIDs created below <1ms apart with performance. >> A test simulating a high-concurrency environment with 4 threads generating >> 10000 UUIDv7 values in parallel to measure the collision rate of each >> implementation (the amount of times the time based portion of the UUID was >> not unique and entries could not distinguished by time) yeilded the >> following results for each implemtation: >> >> >> - random-byte-only - 99.8% >> - higher-precision - 3.5% >> - counter-based - 0% >> >> >> Performance tests show a decrease in performance as expected with the >> counter based implementation due to the introduction of synchronization: >> >> - random-byte-only 143.487 ± 10.932 ns/op >> - higher-precision 149.651 ± 8.438 ns/op >> - counter-based 245.036 ± 2.943 ns/op >> >> The best balance here might be to employ a higher-precision implementation >> as the large increase in time sensitivity comes at a very slight performance >> cost. > > Kieran Farrell has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > update <strong> note to @api note Hello Kieran, > Hi All, Would it be possible to progress review with this? I haven't been able to check and respond to your updates, sorry about that. I'll need at least a few more days to come back to this. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25303#issuecomment-3188171079
