I have recently started a new job and noticed that all the SQL tables use the GUID data type for the primary key.
In my previous job we used integers (Auto-Increment) for the primary key and it was a lot more easier to work with in my opinion.
For example, say you had two related tables; Product and ProductType - I could easily cross check the 'ProductTypeID' column of both tables for a particular row to quickly map the data in my head because its easy to store the number (2,4,45 etc) as opposed to (E75B92A3-3299-4407-A913-C5CA196B3CAB).
The extra frustration comes from me wanting to understand how the tables are related, sadly there is no Database diagram :(
A lot of people say that GUID's are better because you can define the unique identifer in your C# code for example using NewID() without requiring SQL SERVER to do it - this also allows you to know provisionally what the ID will be.... but I've seen that it is possible to still retrieve the 'next auto-incremented integer' too.
A DBA contractor reported that our queries could be up to 30% faster if we used the Integer type instead of GUIDS...
Why does the GUID data type exist, what advantages does it really provide?... Even if its a choice by some professional there must be some good reasons as to why its implemented?
GUIDs are good as identity fields in certain cases:
When you have multiple instances of SQL (different servers) and you need to combine the different updates later on without affecting referential integrity
Disconnected clients that create data - this way they can create data without worrying that the ID field is already taken
GUIDs are generated to be globally unique, which is why they are suited for such scenarios.
Contrary to what most folks here seem to preach, I see GUID's as more of a plague than a blessing. Here's why:
GUIDs may seem to be a natural choice for your primary key - and if you really must, you could probably argue to use it for the PRIMARY KEY of the table. What I'd strongly recommend not to do is use the GUID column as the clustering key, which SQL Server does by default, unless you specifically tell it not to.
You really need to keep two issues apart:
the primary key is a logical construct - one of the candidate keys that uniquely and reliably identifies every row in your table. This can be anything, really - an INT, a GUID, a string - pick what makes most sense for your scenario.
the clustering key (the column or columns that define the "clustered index" on the table) - this is a physical storage-related thing, and here, a small, stable, ever-increasing data type is your best pick - INT or BIGINT as your default option.
By default, the primary key on a SQL Server table is also used as the clustering key - but that doesn't need to be that way! I've personally seen massive performance gains when breaking up the previous GUID-based Primary / Clustered Key into two separate key - the primary (logical) key on the GUID, and the clustering (ordering) key on a separate INT IDENTITY(1,1) column.
As Kimberly Tripp - the Queen of Indexing - and others have stated a great many times - a GUID as the clustering key isn't optimal, since due to its randomness, it will lead to massive page and index fragmentation and to generally bad performance.
Yes, I know - there's newsequentialid() in SQL Server 2005 and up - but even that is not truly and fully sequential and thus also suffers from the same problems as the GUID - just a bit less prominently so. Plus, you can only use it as a default for a column in your table - you cannot get a new sequential GUID in T-SQL code (like a trigger or something) - another major drawback.
Then there's another issue to consider: the clustering key on a table will be added to each and every entry on each and every non-clustered index on your table as well - thus you really want to make sure it's as small as possible. Typically, an INT with 2+ billion rows should be sufficient for the vast majority of tables - and compared to a GUID as the clustering key, you can save yourself hundreds of megabytes of storage on disk and in server memory.
Quick calculation - using INT vs. GUID as Primary and Clustering Key:
Base Table with 1'000'000 rows (3.8 MB vs. 15.26 MB)
6 nonclustered indexes (22.89 MB vs. 91.55 MB)
TOTAL: 25 MB vs. 106 MB - and that's just on a single table!
Some more food for thought - excellent stuff by Kimberly Tripp - read it, read it again, digest it! It's the SQL Server indexing gospel, really.
GUIDs as PRIMARY KEY and/or clustered key
The clustered index debate continues
Ever-increasing clustering key - the Clustered Index Debate..........again!
Marc
INT
Advantage:
Numeric values (and specifically integers) are better for performance when used in joins, indexes and conditions.
Numeric values are easier to understand for application users if they are displayed.
Disadvantage:
If your table is large, it is quite possible it will run out of it and after some numeric value there will be no additional identity to use.
GUID
Advantage:
Unique across the server.
Disadvantage:
String values are not as optimal as integer values for performance when used in joins, indexes and conditions.
More storage space is required than INT.
credit goes to : http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2010/04/28/sql-server-guid-vs-int-your-opinion/
There are a ton of Google-able articles on using GUIDs as PKs and almost all of them say the same thing your DBA contractor says -- queries are faster without GUIDs as keys.
The primary use I've seen in practice (we've never used them as PKs) is with replication. The MSDN page for uniqueidentifier says about the same.
It is globally unique, so that each record in your table has a GUID that is shared by no other item of any kind in the world. Handy if you need this kind of exclusive identification (if you are replicating the database, or combining data from multiple source). Otherwise, your dba is correct - GUIDs are much larger and less efficient that integers, and you could speed up your db (30%? maybe...)
They basically save you from more sometimes complicated logic of using
set #InsertID = scope_identity()
Related
We're considering using UUID values as primary keys for our MySQL database. The data being inserted is generated from dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of remote computers and being inserted at a rate of 100-40,000 inserts per second, and we'll never do any updates.
The database itself will typically get to around 50M records before we start to cull data, so not a massive database, but not tiny either. We're also planing to run on InnoDB, though we are open to changing that if there is a better engine for what we're doing.
We were ready to go with Java's Type 4 UUID, but in testing have been seeing some strange behavior. For one, we're storing as varchar(36) and I now realize we'd be better off using binary(16) - though how much better off I'm not sure.
The bigger question is: how badly does this random data screw up the index when we have 50M records? Would we be better off if we used, for example, a type-1 UUID where the leftmost bits were timestamped? Or maybe we should ditch UUIDs entirely and consider auto_increment primary keys?
I'm looking for general thoughts/tips on the performance of different types of UUIDs when they are stored as an index/primary key in MySQL. Thanks!
At my job, we use UUID as PKs. What I can tell you from experience is DO NOT USE THEM as PKs (SQL Server by the way).
It's one of those things that when you have less than 1000 records it;s ok, but when you have millions, it's the worst thing you can do. Why? Because UUID are not sequential, so everytime a new record is inserted MSSQL needs to go look at the correct page to insert the record in, and then insert the record. The really ugly consequence with this is that the pages end up all in different sizes and they end up fragmented, so now we have to do de-fragmentation periodic.
When you use an autoincrement, MSSQL will always go to the last page, and you end up with equally sized pages (in theory) so the performance to select those records is much better (also because the INSERTs will not block the table/page for so long).
However, the big advantage of using UUID as PKs is that if we have clusters of DBs, there will not be conflicts when merging.
I would recommend the following model:
PK INT Identity
Additional column automatically generated as UUID.
This way, the merge process is possible (UUID would be your REAL key, while the PK would just be something temporary that gives you good performance).
NOTE: That the best solution is to use NEWSEQUENTIALID (like I was saying in the comments), but for legacy app with not much time to refactor (and even worse, not controlling all inserts), it is not possible to do.
But indeed as of 2017, I'd say the best solution here is NEWSEQUENTIALID or doing Guid.Comb with NHibernate.
A UUID is a Universally Unique ID. It's the universally part that you should be considering here.
Do you really need the IDs to be universally unique? If so, then UUIDs may be your only choice.
I would strongly suggest that if you do use UUIDs, you store them as a number and not as a string. If you have 50M+ records, then the saving in storage space will improve your performance (although I couldn't say by how much).
If your IDs do not need to be universally unique, then I don't think that you can do much better then just using auto_increment, which guarantees that IDs will be unique within a table (since the value will increment each time)
Something to take into consideration is that Autoincrements are generated one at a time and cannot be solved using a parallel solution. The fight for using UUIDs eventually comes down to what you want to achieve versus what you potentially sacrifice.
On performance, briefly:
A UUID like the one above is 36
characters long, including dashes. If
you store this VARCHAR(36), you're
going to decrease compare performance
dramatically. This is your primary
key, you don't want it to be slow.
At its bit level, a UUID is 128 bits,
which means it will fit into 16 bytes,
note this is not very human readable,
but it will keep storage low, and is
only 4 times larger than a 32-bit int,
or 2 times larger than a 64-bit int.
I will use a VARBINARY(16)
Theoretically, this can work without a
lot of overhead.
I recommend reading the following two posts:
Brian "Krow" Aker's Idle Thoughts - Myths, GUID vs Autoincrement
To UUID or not to UUID ?
I reckon between the two, they answer your question.
I tend to avoid UUID simply because it is a pain to store and a pain to use as a primary key but there are advantages. The main one is they are UNIQUE.
I usually solve the problem and avoid UUID by using dual key fields.
COLLECTOR = UNIQUE ASSIGNED TO A MACHINE
ID = RECORD COLLECTED BY THE COLLECTOR (auto_inc field)
This offers me two things. Speed of auto-inc fields and uniqueness of data being stored in a central location after it is collected and grouped together. I also know while browsing the data where it was collected which is often quite important for my needs.
I have seen many cases while dealing with other data sets for clients where they have decided to use UUID but then still have a field for where the data was collected which really is a waste of effort. Simply using two (or more if needed) fields as your key really helps.
I have just seen too many performance hits using UUID. They feel like a cheat...
Instead of centrally generating unique keys for each insertion, how about allocating blocks of keys to individual servers? When they run out of keys, they can request a new block. Then you solve the problem of overhead by connecting for each insert.
Keyserver maintains next available id
Server 1 requests id block.
Keyserver returns (1,1000)
Server 1 can insert a 1000 records until it needs to request a new block
Server 2 requests index block.
Keyserver returns (1001,2000)
etc...
You could come up with a more sophisticated version where a server could request the number of needed keys, or return unused blocks to the keyserver, which would then of course need to maintain a map of used/unused blocks.
I realize this question is rather old but I did hit upon it in my research. Since than a number of things happened (SSD are ubiquitous InnoDB got updates etc).
In my research I found this rather interesting post on performance:
claiming that due to the randomness of a GUID/UUID index trees can get rather unbalanced. in the MariaDB KB I found another post suggested a solution.
But since than the new UUID_TO_BIN takes care of this. This function is only available in MySQL (tested version 8.0.18) and not in MariaDB (version 10.4.10)
TL;DR: Store UUID as converted/optimized BINARY(16) values.
I would assign each server a numeric ID in a transactional manner.
Then, each record inserted will just autoincrement its own counter.
Combination of ServerID and RecordID will be unique.
ServerID field can be indexed and future select performance
based on ServerID (if needed) may be much better.
The short answer is that many databases have performance problems (in particular with high INSERT volumes) due to a conflict between their indexing method and UUIDs' deliberate entropy in the high-order bits. There are several common hacks:
choose a different index type (e.g. nonclustered on MSSQL) that doesn't mind it
munge the data to move the entropy to lower-order bits (e.g. reordering bytes of V1 UUIDs on MySQL)
make the UUID a secondary key with an auto-increment int primary key
... but these are all hacks--and probably fragile ones at that.
The best answer, but unfortunately the slowest one, is to demand your vendor improve their product so it can deal with UUIDs as primary keys just like any other type. They shouldn't be forcing you to roll your own half-baked hack to make up for their failure to solve what has become a common use case and will only continue to grow.
What about some hand crafted UID? Give each of the thousands of servers an ID and make primary key a combo key of autoincrement,MachineID ???
Since the primary key is generated decentralised, you don't have the option of using an auto_increment anyway.
If you don't have to hide the identity of the remote machines, use Type 1 UUIDs instead of UUIDs. They are easier to generate and can at least not hurt the performance of the database.
The same goes for varchar (char, really) vs. binary: it can only help matters. Is it really important, how much performance is improved?
The main case where UUIDs cause miserable performance is ...
When the INDEX is too big to be cached in the buffer_pool, each lookup tends to be a disk hit. For HDD, this can slow down the access by 10x or worse. (No, that is not a typo for "10%".) With SSDs, the slowdown is less, but still significant.
This applies to any "hash" (MD5, SHA256, etc), with one exception: A type-1 UUID with its bits rearranged.
Background and manual optimization: UUIDs
MySQL 8.0: see UUID_TO_BIN() and BIN_TO_UUID()
MariaDB 10.7 carries this further with its UUID datatype.
What would be the performance penalty of using strings as primary keys instead of bigints etc.? String comparison is much more expensive than integer comparison, but on the other hand I can imagine that internally a DBMS will compute hash keys to reduce the penalty.
An application that I work on uses strings as primary keys in several tables (MySQL). It is not trivial to change this, and I'd like to know what can be gained performance wise to justify the work.
on the other hand I can imagine that
internally a DBMS will compute hash
keys to reduce the penalty.
The DB needs to maintain a B-Tree (or a similar structure) with the key in a way to have them ordered.
If the key is hashed and stored it in the B-Tree that would be fine to check rapidly the uniqueness of the key -- the key can still be looked up efficiently. But you would not be able to search efficient for range of data (e.g. with LIKE) because the B-Tree is no more ordered according to the String value.
So I think most DB really store the String in the B-Tree, which can (1) take more space than numeric values and (2) require the B-Tree to be re-balanced if keys are inserted in arbitrary order (no notion of increasing value as with numeric pk).
The penalty in practice can range from insignificant to huge. It all depends on the usage, the number of rows, the average size of the string key, the queries which join table, etc.
In our product we use varchar(32) for primary keys (GUIDs) and we haven't met performance issues of this. Our product is a web site with extreme overload and is critical to be stable.
We use SQL Server 2005.
Edit: In our biggest tables we have more than 3 000 000 records with lots of inserts and selects from them. I think in general, the benefit of migrating to int key will be very low, but the problems while migrating very high.
One thing to watch out for is page splits (I know this can happen in SQL Server - probably the same in MySQL).
Primary keys are physically ordered. By using an auto-increment integer you guarantee that each time you insert you are inserting the next number up, so there is no need for the db to reorder the keys. If you use strings however, the pk you insert may need to be placed in the middle of the other keys to maintain the pk order. That process of reordering the pks on the insert can get expensive.
It depends on several factors: RDBMS, number of indexes involving those columns but in general it will be more efficient using ints, folowed by bigints.
Any performance gains depend on usage, so without concrete examples of table schema and query workload it is hard to say.
Unless it makes sense in the domain (I'm thinking unique something like social security number), a surrogate integer key is a good choice; referring objects do not need to have their FK reference updated when the referenced object changes.
If I set the primary key to be INT type (AUTO_INCREMENT) or set it in UUID, what is the difference between these two in the database performance (SELECT, INSERT etc) and why?
UUID returns a universal unique identifier (hopefuly also unique if imported to another DB as well).
To quote from MySQL doc (emphasis mine):
A UUID is designed as a number that is globally unique in space and
time. Two calls to UUID() are expected to generate two different
values, even if these calls are performed on two separate computers
that are not connected to each other.
On the other hand a simply INT primary id key (e.g. AUTO_INCREMENT) will return a unique integer for the specific DB and DB table, but which is not universally unique (so if imported to another DB chances are there will be primary key conflicts).
In terms of performance, there shouldn't be any noticeable difference using auto-increment over UUID. Most posts (including some by the authors of this site), state as such. Of course UUID may take a little more time (and space), but this is not a performance bottleneck for most (if not all) cases. Having a column as Primary Key should make both choices equal wrt to performance. See references below:
To UUID or not to UUID?
Myths, GUID vs Autoincrement
Performance: UUID vs auto-increment in cakephp-mysql
UUID performance in MySQL?
Primary Keys: IDs versus GUIDs (coding horror)
(UUID vs auto-increment performance results, adapted from Myths, GUID vs Autoincrement)
UUID pros / cons (adapted from Primary Keys: IDs versus GUIDs)
GUID Pros
Unique across every table, every database, every server
Allows easy merging of records from different databases
Allows easy distribution of databases across multiple servers
You can generate IDs anywhere, instead of having to roundtrip to the database
Most replication scenarios require GUID columns anyway
GUID Cons
It is a whopping 4 times larger than the traditional 4-byte index value; this can have serious performance and storage implications if
you're not careful
Cumbersome to debug (where userid='{BAE7DF4-DDF-3RG-5TY3E3RF456AS10}')
The generated GUIDs should be partially sequential for best performance (eg, newsequentialid() on SQL 2005) and to enable use of
clustered indexes.
Note
I would read carefully the mentioned references and decide whether to use UUID or not depending on my use case. That said, in many cases UUIDs would be indeed preferable. For example one can generate UUIDs without using/accessing the database at all, or even use UUIDs which have been pre-computed and/or stored somewhere else. Plus you can easily generalise/update your database schema and/or clustering scheme without having to worry about IDs breaking and causing conflicts.
In terms of possible collisions, for example using v4 UUIDS (random), the probability to find a duplicate within 103 trillion version-4 UUIDs is one in a billion.
A UUID key cannot be pk until unless persisted in DB so round tripping will happen until then you cannot assume its pk without a successful transaction. Most of the UUID use time based, mac based, name based or some random uuid. Given we are moving heavily towards container based deployments and they have a pattern for starting sequence MAC addresses relying on mac addresses will not work. Time based is not going to guarantee as the assumption is systems are always in exact time sync which is not true sometimes as clocks will not follow the rules. GUID cannot guarantee that collision will never occur just that in given short period of time it will not occur but given enough time and systems running in parallel and proliferations of systems that guarantee will eventually fail.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.txt
For MySQL, which uses clustered primary key, version 4 randomly generated UUID will hurt insertion performance if used as the primary key. This is because it requires reordering the rows to place the newly inserted row at the right position inside the clustered index.
FWIW, PostgreSQL uses heap instead of clustered primary key, thus using UUID as the primary key won't impact PostgreSQL's insertion performance.
For more information, this article has a more comprehensive comparison between UUID and Int: Choose Primary Key - UUID or Auto Increment Integer
I am Implementing custom ASPNetMembership using EF 4.0
Is there any reason why i should use Guid as a primary key in User tables?
As far as i know Int as a PK on SQL Server more performanced than strings.
And Int is easier to iterate.
Also, for security purpose if i need to pass any int id somewhere e.g in url i may encrypt it somehow and pass it like a string with no probs.
But if i want to use auto generated Guid on SQL Server side using EF 4.0 i need to do this trick http://leedumond.com/blog/using-a-guid-as-an-entitykey-in-entity-framework-4/
I can't see any cases why i should use Guid as PK, may be only one if system going to have millions ans millions users, but also, theoretically, Guid could be duplicated sometime isn't so?
Anyway Int32 size is 2,147.483.647 it is pretty much even for very-very big system, but if this number is still not enough I may go with Int64, in that cases I may have 9,223.372.036.854.775.807 rows. Pretty much huh?
From another hand, M$ using Guids as PK in their ASPNetMembership implementation. [aspnetdb].[aspnet_Users] -> PK UserId Type uniqueidentifier,
should be some reasons/explanation why the did it?!
May be some one has any ideas/experience about that?
I would agree 100% with you - using an INT IDENTITY is much better!
GUIDs may seem to be a natural choice for your primary key - and if you really must, you could probably argue to use it for the PRIMARY KEY of the table. What I'd strongly recommend not to do is use the GUID column as the clustering key, which SQL Server does by default, unless you specifically tell it not to.
You really need to keep two issues apart:
1) the primary key is a logical construct - one of the candidate keys that uniquely and reliably identifies every row in your table. This can be anything, really - an INT, a GUID, a string - pick what makes most sense for your scenario.
2) the clustering key (the column or columns that define the "clustered index" on the table) - this is a physical storage-related thing, and here, a small, stable, ever-increasing data type is your best pick - INT or BIGINT as your default option.
By default, the primary key on a SQL Server table is also used as the clustering key - but that doesn't need to be that way! I've personally seen massive performance gains when breaking up the previous GUID-based Primary / Clustered Key into two separate key - the primary (logical) key on the GUID, and the clustering (ordering) key on a separate INT IDENTITY(1,1) column.
As Kimberly Tripp - the Queen of Indexing - and others have stated a great many times - a GUID as the clustering key isn't optimal, since due to its randomness, it will lead to massive page and index fragmentation and to generally bad performance.
Yes, I know - there's newsequentialid() in SQL Server 2005 and up - but even that is not truly and fully sequential and thus also suffers from the same problems as the GUID - just a bit less prominently so.
Then there's another issue to consider: the clustering key on a table will be added to each and every entry on each and every non-clustered index on your table as well - thus you really want to make sure it's as small as possible. Typically, an INT with 2+ billion rows should be sufficient for the vast majority of tables - and compared to a GUID as the clustering key, you can save yourself hundreds of megabytes of storage on disk and in server memory.
Quick calculation - using INT vs. GUID as Primary and Clustering Key:
Base Table with 1'000'000 rows (3.8 MB vs. 15.26 MB)
6 nonclustered indexes (22.89 MB vs. 91.55 MB)
TOTAL: 25 MB vs. 106 MB - and that's just on a single table!
Some more food for thought - excellent stuff by Kimberly Tripp - read it, read it again, digest it! It's the SQL Server indexing gospel, really.
GUIDs as PRIMARY KEY and/or clustered key
The clustered index debate continues
Ever-increasing clustering key - the Clustered Index Debate..........again!
Disk space is cheap - that's not the point!
Go with the INT PK. See Kimberly L. Tripp's article: GUIDs as PRIMARY KEYs and/or the clustering key
Until Entity Framework introduces any concept of batching there is no reason for not using INT IDENTITY. Guid is only useful when you want to set Id of the new record on the client.
I in the process of designing a database for high volume data and I was wondering what datatype to use for the primary keys?
There will be table partitioning and the database will ultimatley be clustered and will be hot failover to alternative datacentres.
EDIT
Tables - think chat system for multiple time periods and multiple things to chat about with multiple users chatting about the time period and thing.
Exponential issues are what I am thinking about - ie something could generate billions of rows in small time period. ie before we could change the database or DBA doing DBA things
Mark - I share your concearn of GUID - I dont like coding with GUIDs flying about.
With just the little bit of info you've provided, I would recommend using a BigInt, which would take you up to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807, a number you're not likely to ever exceed. (Don't start with an INT and think you can easily change it to a BigInt when you exceed 2 billion rows. Its possible (I've done it), but can take an extremely long time, and involve significant system disruption.)
Kimberly Tripp has an Excellent series of blog articles (GUIDs as PRIMARY KEYs and/or the clustering key and The Clustered Index Debate Continues) on the issue of creating clustered indexes, and choosing the primary key (related issues, but not always exactly the same). Her recommendation is that a clustered index/primary key should be:
Unique (otherwise useless as a key)
Narrow (the key is used in all non-clustered indexes, and in foreign-key relationships)
Static (you don't want to have to change all related records)
Always Increasing (so new records always get added to the end of the table, and don't have to be inserted in the middle)
If you use a BigInt as an increasing identity as your key and your clustered index, that should satisfy all four of these requirements.
Edit: Kimberly's article I mentioned above (GUIDs as PRIMARY KEYs and/or the clustering key) talks about why a (client generated) GUID is a bad choice for a clustering key:
But, a GUID that is not sequential -
like one that has it's values
generated in the client (using .NET)
OR generated by the newid() function
(in SQL Server) can be a horribly bad
choice - primarily because of the
fragmentation that it creates in the
base table but also because of its
size. It's unnecessarily wide (it's 4
times wider than an int-based identity
- which can give you 2 billion (really, 4 billion) unique rows). And,
if you need more than 2 billion you
can always go with a bigint (8-byte
int) and get 263-1 rows.
SQL has a function called NEWSEQUENTIALID() that allows you to generate sequential GUIDs that avoid the fragmentation issue, but they still have the problem of being unnecessarily wide.
You can always go for int but taking into account your partitioning/clustering I'd suggest you look into uniqueidentifier which will generate globally unique keys.
int tends to be the norm unless you need massive volume of data, and has the advantage of working with IDENTITY etc; Guid has some advantages if you want the numbers to be un-guessable or exportable, but if you use a Guid (unless you generate it yourself as "combed") you should ensure it is non-clustered (the index, that is; not the farm), as it won't be incremental.
I thik that int will be very good for it.
The range of INTEGER is - 2147483648 to 2147483647.
also you can use UniqueIdentifier (GUID), but in this case
table row size limit in MSSQL
storage + memory. Imagine you have tables with 10000000 rows and growing
flexibility: there are T-SQL operators available for INT like >, <, =, etc...
GUID is not optimized for ORDER BY/GROUP BY queries and for range queries in general