cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tatu Saloranta <tsalora...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: UUIDs whose alphanumeric order is the same as their chronological order
Date Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:03:25 GMT
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:54 PM, David Boxenhorn <david@lookin2.com> wrote:
> Having a physical location encoded in the UUID *increases* the chance of a
> collision, because it means fewer random bits. There definitely will be more
> than one UUID created in the same clock unit on the same machine! The same
> bits that you use to encode your few servers can be used for over 100
> trillion random numbers!

You did not read what I wrote... I did not say it does, just that
people feel as if it does.
>
> "As to ordering, if you wanted to use time-uuids, comparators that do
> give time-based ordering are trivial, and no slower than lexical
> sorting."
>
> "No slower" isn't a good reason to use it! I am willing to take a
> (reasonable) time *penalty* to use lexically ordered UUIDs that will work
> both in Cassandra and Oracle (and which are human-readable - always good for
> debugging)!

Huh? These are plain old UUIDs, as readable (or not) as any.
Comparator refers to java.util.Comparator (or Comparable for class
itself).

But fear not, I am not trying to change your mind, just pointing out
that there is nothing magical about getting things to sort.
Just that sorting by standard String representation is not the only
collation order there is.

>
> I am also willing to take a reasonable penalty to avoid using weird
> third-party code for generating UUIDs in the first place.

To each his own -- lots of people use "weird" code, and generally use
little bit less derogatory and patronizing terms when referring such
libraries.

And it seems to me that you are perfectly happy writing your own
"unweird" code to generate them instead. :-)

-+ Tatu +-

Mime
View raw message