You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I might be wrong, but from what I understand for the new UUID v7, the initial statements, only the first still true:
It isn't the most character efficient way of encoding 128 bits of randomness: no big change here
UUID v1/v2 is impractical in many environments, as it requires access to a unique, stable MAC address: v7 not not use MAC
UUID v3/v5 requires a unique seed and produces randomly distributed IDs, which can cause fragmentation in many data structures: UUIDv7 does not require it
UUID v4 provides no other information than randomness which can cause fragmentation in many data structures v7 includes a timestamp
I don't know the performance benchmarks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In my personal opinion, I think it's best to use GUID.CreateVersion7() preferentially in .NET 9 and later.
There are problems with Ulid in terms of interoperability with Guid, and UUIDv7, which works with Guid, is personally the most ideal ID.
In terms of performance, the current implementation of CreateVersion7 is inferior to NewGuid because it generates a Guid and then fills in the Timestamp part.
However, this is probably not something to worry about.
I might be wrong, but from what I understand for the new UUID v7, the initial statements, only the first still true:
UUID v1/v2 is impractical in many environments, as it requires access to a unique, stable MAC address: v7 not not use MACUUID v3/v5 requires a unique seed and produces randomly distributed IDs, which can cause fragmentation in many data structures: UUIDv7 does not require itUUID v4 provides no other information than randomness which can cause fragmentation in many data structuresv7 includes a timestampI don't know the performance benchmarks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: