Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
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.
I know that primary keys based on Guids do not have the best performance (due to the fragmentation), but they are globally unique and allow replication scenarios.
Integral identifiers, on the other side, have greater performance at the cost of scalability.
But in what scenarios would someone want to use sequential uniqueidentifier as the primary key? I think, that it beats the purpose of GUID, but still I see mentioning of the sequentals now and then.
What do I miss here?
What is commonly known as a sequential guids in SQL Server 2005 (generated by NEWSEQUENTIALID()) are an attempt to overcome the issues with normal guids.
They are still universally unique but also are always ascending. This means that they can be used for replication and have much better insert performance than traditional GUIDs.
The one drawback is that they are not ‘secure’ because it is possible to guess the next sequential guid.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189786.aspx