The perils of UUID primary keys in SQLite
88 points by emschwartz 11 hours ago | 47 comments

blopker 10 hours ago
UUIDs are way over used. There is almost always a better key to use, usually a bigint for databases. If you're making some kind of leaderless distributed data store, then maybe, but even then there are other ID sharding strategies I'd go for first depending on the constraints.

For a single database, bigints are smaller and faster, with less footguns.

UUIDs can be nice for an opaque public ID, however I'd still prefer something like a Sqid for space and usability.

reply
Fabricio20 8 hours ago
> bigints are smaller and faster, with less footguns

But be careful!! Javascript WILL interpret your bigints as Number() and round them down because they are too big without telling you!!!

Famously seen by every snowflake user that has interacted with Javascript, quite an annoying problem.

reply
silvestrov 3 hours ago
Good trick is to prefix all such keys with magic, i.e. a couple of letters that identify type type of key.

Then it will always be a string and you will be free to change the format/type of the key in the future to UUID or whatever you like.

reply
spiffytech 7 hours ago
Fortunately we're seeing more JS DB libraries offering to read large numbers as the BigInt type.
reply
shakna 4 hours ago
But frustratingly, a JS BigInt is nothing like a BigInt in any other language.

In JS - BigInt is 64bit integer.

In anything else - BigInt is a arbitrarily large integer.

reply
anematode 4 hours ago
Hm? JavaScript BigInts are arbitrary precision, and you need to use methods like BigInt.asIntN(64, a) to convert them to 64 bits
reply
mort96 3 hours ago
I hate this so much because you can’t nicely serialise a BigInt as JSON. Using a string is nicer but it only makes sense where int64 is used as an ID, not where it’s used as a number; and you don’t wanna have to configure this per field per query.
reply
nh2 2 hours ago
JSON has arbitrary length numbers in the spec only.
reply
Etheryte 3 hours ago
This is simply not true? Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean?
reply
paulddraper 7 hours ago
!!

Node.js drivers will correctly read int64 as string or bigint, not number.

E.g. pg for PostgreSQL

Maybe there’s a buggy driver but I don’t know it.

reply
JamesSwift 8 hours ago
UUIDs also have a nice benefit of it being impossible to query the wrong table with one if you mixup what an FK goes to
reply
pyuser583 7 hours ago
Yeah this is nice - also helps with grepping dump files.
reply
mamcx 6 hours ago
How is this done?
reply
nickpeterson 5 hours ago
They just mean you catch incorrect joins more easily because there is usually no overlap in keys between unrelated tables. Using int, you’re usually going to have some shared values between two unrelated tables.
reply
sudoshred 6 hours ago
Statistically impossible to inadvertently generate a collision using UUID keys. UUID is designed to be unique when generated across any computer system. Practically speaking if you have an exactly matching pair of UUIDs from disparate system you have found the exact record match. The name gives a hint "Universally unique identifier". -Not a cryptographer.
reply
usrnm 39 minutes ago
It definitely is possible, just very improbable
reply
echoangle 13 minutes ago
That’s probably what’s meant by statistically impossible.
reply
masklinn 5 hours ago
The U means if you join the wrong table your join will always come up empty.

It does not actually make it impossible to query the wrong table it just tells you quickly when you’ve done so.

reply
andersmurphy 3 hours ago
Yes this matters even more if you are doing a lot of joins. Naive string UUIDs are 32 bytes (though I use binary uuid in the post which is 16) compared to 8 bytes for a 64-bit int. This matters even more with sqlite as it uses varint encoding. The upshot of all this is your indexes take up a lot less space in memory.
reply
bob1029 9 hours ago
I am finding UUIDs help a lot if your primary schema consumer is an LLM.

Inappropriate aliasing of integer keys allows for silent errors in queries because it will actually return some result a lot of the time. A UUID is immune to this problem. The model recognizes its mistake a lot more reliably when previously non-empty tables start showing up empty after attempting a join.

reply
crubier 8 hours ago
No one ever got fired for using UUIDs
reply
jdthedisciple 2 hours ago
So UUID isn't the problem but UUID v4 is, just like any random ID-scheme, correct?

UUID v7 so far seems like the best solution if you want UUID benefits and ordering.

reply
ItsBob 2 hours ago
My rule for primary keys and id's is simple: Sequential integer (or bigint) as the PK and if I need to make it public, I have a GUID (or UUID) in the row too, e.g. tbl_person would have Id (int|bigint) and person_guid as (UUID).

The Integer id is used for joins and looks ups and such but that's it. If I need to send anything to the frontend or outside of the app/DB then that's the UUID.

reply
bambax 2 hours ago
Why would you use UUIDs a primary keys? Let SQLite use rowids internally (which is automatic and invisible), and have a different (indexed) column with UUID if you need that for publishing the ID somewhere.
reply
ac50hz 3 hours ago
I enjoy these carefully worded posts from Anders Murphy, illustrative and informative, not opinionated and preachy. Very useful, it’s great to see the process, and ofc bookmarkeable material for sharing with others.
reply
andersmurphy 4 hours ago
This is actually a draft. I Wanted to add more details about how this changes with row size etc. I might get time to update it later today.
reply
pyuser583 8 hours ago
Oh gosh the ints v uuids debate for pks. This is worse than vim v eMacs or brackets v braces.
reply
w10-1 9 hours ago
Isn't the solution just to use the rowid (after doing the read-id-after-insert dance)?

How much trouble does SQLite reysing rowid's actually cause?

reply
andersmurphy 4 hours ago
You don't even need to that. SQLite auto increments the ids and is a single writer (which you should be coordinating at the application level.

Regular rowids are definitely the way to go if you can use them.

reply
cropcirclbureau 3 hours ago
Is this relevant for other databases? For postgres for example, which supports concurrent writers, wouldn't sequential keys lead to contention on the page at the frontier?
reply
andersmurphy 2 hours ago
That's a good question. I don't know the answer. I will say, generally you can get higher write throughput with a single writer. Even more so if you're prepared to shard along boundaries where you don't need atomic transactions.

Contention and coordination are real killers, concurrent writes (that require coordination like postgres) often underdeliver.

reply
yepyoukno 11 hours ago
Perils of “UUIDv4”. Everyone knows that’s what UUIDv7 was really for, and you should always convert that to binary to optimize everything.
reply
JSR_FDED 9 hours ago
Small nit: uuid7 is 128 bits (16 bytes) by definition. So there’s no need to convert it to binary. It already is. Unless you’re working with a stringified version of the uuid7.
reply
yepyoukno 9 hours ago
Oh yes, I meant don’t store as an ID in its string format!
reply
dexterdog 8 hours ago
It's just s dumb as storing dates as strings, but people still do it.
reply
littlecranky67 3 hours ago
But SQLite does not have a native datetime type so you have to use strings
reply
voakbasda 2 hours ago
You can use an integer
reply
cenamus 3 hours ago
But also one of the recommended ways of doing it, as it has no native Datetime type.
reply
themafia 7 hours ago
> and you should always convert that to binary to optimize everything

I disagree. I tried this once. Now you need a client access layer to touch the DB in any context. All your console tools no longer work well or at all. If they show up in URLs you need to deoptimize them for transport.

You give up a lot of convenience for this optimization. You should be absolutely sure your design requires it before using it.

reply
dumbledorf 11 hours ago
Wait how is sqlite doing a million inserts a second?
reply
JSR_FDED 9 hours ago
In batches
reply
kg 10 hours ago
sqlite is really fast. I'm surprised it's only a million.
reply
andersmurphy 4 hours ago
It's running on an M1 mac with synchronous full. Wouldn't surprise me if it's possible to get higher numbers.
reply
smitty1e 10 hours ago
reply
KPGv2 5 hours ago
Except this source code is not using :memory: The linked source code has

    (defonce db
      (d/init-db! "db/db.db"
        {:pool-size 4 :pragma {:synchronous "FULL"}}))
That's writing to disk.
reply
andersmurphy 4 hours ago
Yes it's writing to disk (on a M1 mac which has terribly slow fsync). But, because of the transaction the fsync dance is done once per batch. Each row is the id + a 50 byte data blob.

There's only one index so there's no real write amplification. The numbers will go down as you add more data and indexes.

reply
wood_spirit 4 hours ago
If you need (or want the convenience of) a uuid and the time of creation is not secret then use ulids eg uuid v7.
reply