![]() ![]() ![]() 10.4 should support functions as defaults but I cannot get it to work, I just get a string literal of the function name. This is a small personal project but should I use UNHEX and REPLACE("-","") to shrink down the UUIDs and save them as BINARY(16) instead of VARCHAR(36)? Is that the best practice?Ĭan I use UUID() as a default value with phpMyAdmin in MariaDB 10.4?Īt the moment I'm using triggers because that's what I'm used to, this is all being developed in XAMPP so I am using phpMyAdmin. Is that the way to go even if my UUIDs will be public?ĭo I need to store UUIDs as Binary(16) instead of VARCHAR(36)? I read another post that said you could use newer UUID functions BIN_TO_UUID and UUID_TO_BIN to be able to index UUIDs but it's more efficient. Should I just use my UUID column as the P_Key even though they're public? Is that fine or is that crazy? It seems redundant to have 2 columns instead of 1 but I read you shouldn't expose your primary keys to the public and the INT column should be more efficient right? I used to use a "Created" column and index on that but I don't really need it and that seems worse than INT. Then the "id" column would be the actual UUIDs. So my first thought was to just have a vanilla, INT column that is Auto-Increment + Primary Key and called it "idx" for Index. I just have some general questions about how to go about this.Ĭan I just have an "index" column that is only there to act as a primary key? I'm creating some fake DBs to demo an API I'm working on in PHP so my data will have public UUIDs for each row. UUIDSHORT() Returns a short universal identifier as a 64-bit unsigned integer. A warning is logged if you use this function when binlogformat is set to STATEMENT. Steer away from MySQL while you're at it.I've been using MySQL for years but not necessarily efficiently. mysql> SELECT UUID() -> 6ccd780c-baba-1026-9564-5b8c656024db This function is unsafe for statement-based replication. MySQL's implementation of UUID keys is pretty incomplete, I'd steer away from it. Using UUIDs on PostgreSQL is fine, it's a built-in type. though the fact that MySQL UUIDs are UTF8 encoded might add cost. Long story short: comparing string vs binary UUIDs shouldn't cause a noticeable performance difference in a real application. However, UUIDs are normally unique in the first few bytes, so the whole UUID does not need to be compared to know they're different. ![]() Normally this would mean comparisons are twice as long, since the key being compared is twice as long. This means more storage and memory per column which can impact performance. The string UUID will be longer hex characters only encode 4 bits of data per byte so a hex string UUID needs 256 bits to store 128 bits of information. Because it's a string, UUID keys may have a performance and storage hit. Instead there's a UUID function which can generate a UUID as a string of hex numbers. MySQL does not have a built in UUID type. Generating the UUID on the client distributes the extra work (not much extra work) away from the server. You can install various modules to do it on the database, or you can do it on the client. Postgres has no built in UUID generating function. It should perform as an index just as well as any other large integer. ![]() This is a micro-optimization and is unlikely to cause a real performance problem until you get to enormous scales. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |