Hacker News Reader

Comment by seppel | Hacker News Reader

> Just putting "order-550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000" does not make it an order id either, thats what foreign keys are for, mistakes can be made either way.

I'm not talking about the DB level here, I'm talking about what goes over the wire or ends up in logs files. And if you are handing out the uuids to your consumers, you can be reasonable sure that you only get back the uuids you handed out. So if "order-550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000" is not an order, it an error on your side and not on your clients side.

> If your sending id via json you should be using json to encode type either:

Yes and you should also not make any mistakes.

View on HN

So it all comes down to less mistakes made with:

order:"order-550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000"

order:"550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000"

Either one will error in a sane system that checks to make sure the UUID is actually in the db either one can have mishandling sending the wrong id, you just have some extra redundant bytes double confirming the key type while the actual ID will still have to verified.

The nice thing about UUID over say ints is there should be no overlap, so it should be easy to confirm an error like that, double encoding the key from external apis, sure I guess a very slight reduction in time taken to verify an error, for logs aren't you logging the json with the key already?

Of course this whole discussion was about an time order UUID's which are mostly useful just for DB's, if we are just talking about how ID's are formatted for external use in the app, well geez I thought that was what query strings and json was for but ok.

> Either one will error in a sane system that checks to make sure the UUID is actually in the db either one can have mishandling sending the wrong id

Yes of course both will error. What is easier to debug:

order:"person-550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000"

order:"550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000"

In which case you could locate 550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000 in one of your DBs quicker in case of a emergency situation?

Yes redundantly encoding type everywhere in your id will be easier for a specific kind of bug yet you're adding that overhead all the time in both your db mapper and extra bytes everywhere.

Or we are getting reports of invalid order ID let me run a scan across db's and see if its valid anywhere, oh hey it shows up in persons somebody mixed them up somewhere or no it's just invalid somebody messed up in some other way.

If it happens enough to encode it everywhere in ID's you could just have a dev tool that looks for it across your db's with a copy paste, a little longer to scan, vs overhead always in the running app so you can quickly determine that one specific bugs cause. Either way its an invalid ID and being a UUID it won't collide and cause worse problems with overlapping person and order ID as would occur with integers.

I just don't see the value but hey at least you're not storing it that way in the db right?

> Yes redundantly encoding type everywhere in your id will be easier for a specific kind of bug yet you're adding that overhead all the time in both your db mapper and extra bytes everywhere.

I can safe the extra bytes by just removing the '-' from the uuids and using the more compact enconding (base what ever). And at the same time I'll safe countless of debugging hours, because everybody is aligned what kind of ids we are talking about.

> Or we are getting reports of invalid order ID let me run a scan across db's and see if its valid anywhere, oh hey it shows up in persons somebody mixed them up somewhere or no it's just invalid somebody messed up in some other way.

Because you have access to all the DBs and you can easily write a query over all your dbs. That is the naturally assumed.

>uuids and using the more compact enconding (base what ever). And at the same time I'll safe countless of debugging hours, because everybody is aligned what kind of ids we are talking about.

Will never be as compact as 16 byte binary UUID's. Will never be as compact as the same compact text encoding without the type prefix. Will always have the runtime overhead of parsing the type and id and rendering them back from the db.

Again if that one specific bug is so common to add extra id and db mapping overhead ALL THE TIME in the application maybe a simple devop tool should be made available to paste an id and verify its type would be better use of computing resources removing constant runtime overhead.

Seriously I have seen this type of bug once in a great while and it sucks with integer keys because they can easily overlap causing pretty nasty outcomes, UUIDs eliminate that. If I had to dig further I might do a search to see if its actually a valid UUID somewhere, but seriously someone is just sending the wrong ID, it should be pretty quick to track down without the prefix since its globally unique.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com