On 09/01/14 22:53, Monte Goulding wrote: > > 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 >
Interesting. Because more bits = more entropy, presumably. Martin _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode