On 2015-05-21 01:52 AM, Peter Aronson wrote: > Now you're just getting silly. What if the application sets all rowids, > everywhere to 1? The fact is, the chance of collision on a UUID is pretty > astronomically low as long as a decent source of entropy is used (see > http://en.wikipedia.org....
I think Keith's point (which I very much agree with) is that astronomically big is still not guaranteed - and ANY solution that relies on something not guaranteed is a bad solution. I'd much rather even ensure that similar ID's are used client-side, then KNOW that that is the case and implement a solution that understands this and deals with it (such as simply prepending a device-specific ID or some such) to ensure 100% secure uniqueness server-side - no need to rely on astronomically big randomnessessess. > /wiki/Universally_unique_identifier#Random_UUID_probability_of_duplicates). > Yes, some application might not generate proper UUIDs, but that's true with > any scheme that needs to coordinate disconnected data editing or generation > on multiple machines. There are lots of applications out there that use > UUIDs pretty successfully. Are they a perfect solution? Of course not, but > then, what is? But for that particular problem domain they have proved > viable. > Mind you, the original article linked was guilty of gross > over-generalization, and got the amount of randomess in a UUID wrong (it's > 122 bits, not 124). > Peter > >
