[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Hodges) writes: > > What do you think of dropping auto-increment keys and replacing > > them completely with UUIDs? > > > > Auto-incrementing is one of the banes of horizontal scaling
> it is a 16byte INT Makes me nervous. I like being able to have a primary key that is guaranteed to increase as insert-time increases [1]. I like a primary key that doesn't print in scientific notation and essentially forbid me from doing math with my keys. And I like a primary key that's 4 bytes, not 16. That's a big space penalty to pay, considering it repeats for every referencing column and every index. For my app, it's more than a few gigabytes of stuff I'd really like to keep in RAM as much as possible. That's not insignificant. I'm pretty happy with the way MySQL solves key collisions for master-master replication, which is the only horizontal scaling issue I know of (on statement-level replication anyway). Setting auto_increment_increment is easy. If the goal is to make master-master replication more self-organizing, e.g. in a cloud, there might be ways to do that without UUIDs. I know why UUIDs are popular, and I'm happy to see them as an option, but I'd be unhappy about giving up autoincrement. [1] I know this is untrue if my app switches masters, but my app is written not to do that without human supervision. -- Jamie McCarthy http://mccarthy.vg/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
