I did read a web page years ago where a chap reported that using sequential Guids <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189786.aspx> produced significant performance improvements -- *Greg K*
On 2 May 2014 23:56, <[email protected]> wrote: > Probably worth saying that using guids as a primary key is not for > everyone. The key is bigger, so that has a size and performance impact on > all your indexes and foreign keys, and as a clustering key it means new > records are scattered throughout the file rather than being appended to the > tail, leading to logical fragmentation. > > (But if you need to replicate, synchronize or pre-allocate the key > offline in the app tier they can make a lot of sense) > > *From:* Michael Ridland <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, May 2, 2014 7:37 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <[email protected]> > > Guids are also great for offline distributed clients. AutoInc numbers will > be a thing of the past. > > On Friday, May 2, 2014, Jano Petras <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Anthony, >> >> Guids are easiest way forward - due to their uniqueness and native >> support by the DB engine. >> >> The only time I would consider using something else would be if there was >> a requirement for those unique row IDs to be 64bit integers for example or >> if there is a storage space concern - in this case I would consider using >> horizontal partitioning and allocating range of IDs to different instances >> reserving each one with a predefined range of values. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 May 2014 16:16, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Anyone doing database replications, are you using guids? Have any >>> recommendations or experiences? >>> >>> >>> >>> I don’t usually use guids but working on systems that may need to scale, >>> so thinking of switching to guids to avoid any future scalability issues >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks in advance J >>> >>> >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>
