Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 273497
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 12, 20262026-05-12T00:27:53+00:00 2026-05-12T00:27:53+00:00

I have just found this great tutorial as it is something that I need.

  • 0

I have just found this great tutorial as it is something that I need.

However, after having a look, it seems that this might be inefficient. The way it works is, first generate a unique key then check if it exists in the database to make sure it really is unique. However, the larger the database gets the slower the function gets, right?

Instead, I was thinking, is there a way to add ordering to this function? So all that has to be done is check the previous entry in the DB and increment the key. So it will always be unique?

function generate_chars()

{

    $num_chars = 4; //max length of random chars
    $i = 0;
    $my_keys = "123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"; //keys to be chosen from
    $keys_length = strlen($my_keys);
    $url  = "";
    while($i<$num_chars)
    {
        $rand_num = mt_rand(1, $keys_length-1);
        $url .= $my_keys[$rand_num];
        $i++;
    }
    return $url;
}

function isUnique($chars)

{
    //check the uniqueness of the chars
    global $link;
    $q = "SELECT * FROM `urls` WHERE `unique_chars`='".$chars."'";
    $r = mysql_query($q, $link);
    //echo mysql_num_rows($r); die();
    if( mysql_num_rows($r)>0 ): 
        return false;
    else: 
        return true;
    endif;
}
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-12T00:27:53+00:00Added an answer on May 12, 2026 at 12:27 am

    The tiny url people like to use random tokens because then you can’t just troll the tiny url links. “Where does #2 go?” “Oh, cool!” “Where does #3 go?” “Even cooler!” You can type in random characters but it’s unlikely you’ll hit a valid value.

    Since the key is rather sparse (4 values each having 36* possibilities gives you 1,679,616 unique values, 5 gives you 60,466,176) the chance of collisions is small (indeed, it’s a desired part of the design) and a good SQL index will make the lookup be trivial (indeed, it’s the primary lookup for the url so they optimize around it).

    If you really want to avoid the lookup and just unse auto-increment you can create a function that turns an integer into a string of seemingly-random characters with the ability to convert back. So “1” becomes “54jcdn” and “2” becomes “pqmw21”. Similar to Base64-encoding, but not using consecutive characters.

    (*) I actually like using less than 36 characters — single-cased, no vowels, and no similar characters (1, l, I). This prevents accidental swear words and also makes it easier for someone to speak the value to someone else. I even map similar charactes to each other, accepting “0” for “O”. If you’re entirely machine-based you could use upper and lower case and all digits for even greater possibilities.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have just inherited a server application, however it seems that the only copy
I have just installed Eclipse 3.4 and found out that there is not a
I know this seems like I should have immediately found the one example out
I have just found RowSets for database querying with JDBC. They are stateless and
I have just moved job and gone from VB 6 to VB.Net and found
Found some old code, circa VS 2003. Now I have just VS 2008 (SP1)
PROBLEM SOLVED!! I just found my mistakes, after looking through the debugger over and
I've been reading up on SqlTransactions and have found a great load of examples
This is the best tutorial I found so far on migrating data across apps:
EDIT: This method actually works great and I asked it then found the solution

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.