On 10/01/2014, at 9:22 AM, Martin Baxter wrote:
> So I take it that the situations where you would use this type of uuid
> are really similar to those situations where you might use a hash, but
> where a simple hash wouldn't povide a high enough probability of
> uniqueness for the context.
Actually a sha1 hash is more likely to be unique than a uuid. I really don't
see the advantage of using type 3 or 5 uuid rather than sha1 as in:
local tSHA
get binaryDecode("h*",sha1Digest("hello"), tSHA)
answer tSHA
Other than saving a few bits because the uuid is shorter... and perhaps that
you can do things like upgrade from md5 based to sha based without messing with
your database. Type 3 and 5 uuids are basically most bits form the hash and
some other bits to identify the type.
I suspect git would be the most heavily used distributed database in use and
it's built on the sha 1 hash. Even in the biggest git repo (the linux kernel)
they only need to use the first 12 chars of the sha to uniquely identify the
object in the database.
Cheers
--
M E R Goulding
Software development services
Bespoke application development for vertical markets
mergExt - There's an external for that!
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
