That being said, unless you have a specific reason to use a UUID over the standard incrementing integer, I wouldn't if for no other reason than dealing with UUIDs is visually complicated.
That being said, unless you have a specific reason to use a UUID over the standard incrementing integer, I wouldn't if for no other reason than dealing with UUIDs is visually complicated.
Clustering indexes make a lot of sense for many workloads, you just have to design your data model with them in mind.
The effect is just worsened by clustering, as done in SQL Server for significant (or at least measurable) benefits for many data patterns, because your base data is bigger due to wasted space due to excess page splits, as well as your supplementary indexes, so that needs reorganising more often too.
A common answer is to use an int (or maybe bigint) for your internal keys and a UUID for anything external, so you have the benefits of a UUID for external use (practically zero chance of collision in distributed systems, if appropriately random, and not potentially leaking information in some security contexts) but the efficiently of the integer otherwise. Or to use a partially ordered UUID format, which balances the compromises slightly differently (benefit: single value, dropping some of the UUID issues, keeping some of the benefits; detriment: letting some of the disadvantages of UUIDs, potentially reducing some of the benefits).