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 36151
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 10, 20262026-05-10T14:20:53+00:00 2026-05-10T14:20:53+00:00

I’ve always preferred to use long integers as primary keys in databases, for simplicity

  • 0

I’ve always preferred to use long integers as primary keys in databases, for simplicity and (assumed) speed. But when using a REST or Rails-like URL scheme for object instances, I’d then end up with URLs like this:

http://example.com/user/783 

And then the assumption is that there are also users with IDs of 782, 781, …, 2, and 1. Assuming that the web app in question is secure enough to prevent people entering other numbers to view other users without authorization, a simple sequentially-assigned surrogate key also ‘leaks’ the total number of instances (older than this one), in this case users, which might be privileged information. (For instance, I am user #726 in stackoverflow.)

Would a UUID/GUID be a better solution? Then I could set up URLs like this:

http://example.com/user/035a46e0-6550-11dd-ad8b-0800200c9a66 

Not exactly succinct, but there’s less implied information about users on display. Sure, it smacks of ‘security through obscurity’ which is no substitute for proper security, but it seems at least a little more secure.

Is that benefit worth the cost and complexity of implementing UUIDs for web-addressable object instances? I think that I’d still want to use integer columns as database PKs just to speed up joins.

There’s also the question of in-database representation of UUIDs. I know MySQL stores them as 36-character strings. Postgres seems to have a more efficient internal representation (128 bits?) but I haven’t tried it myself. Anyone have any experience with this?


Update: for those who asked about just using the user name in the URL (e.g., http://example.com/user/yukondude), that works fine for object instances with names that are unique, but what about the zillions of web app objects that can really only be identified by number? Orders, transactions, invoices, duplicate image names, stackoverflow questions, …

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 3 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. 2026-05-10T14:20:54+00:00Added an answer on May 10, 2026 at 2:20 pm

    I can’t say about the web side of your question. But uuids are great for n-tier applications. PK generation can be decentralized: each client generates it’s own pk without risk of collision. And the speed difference is generally small.

    Make sure your database supports an efficient storage datatype (16 bytes, 128 bits). At the very least you can encode the uuid string in base64 and use char(22).

    I’ve used them extensively with Firebird and do recommend.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

link Im having trouble converting the html entites into html characters, (&# 8217;) i
That's pretty much it. I'm using Nokogiri to scrape a web page what has
I want to count how many characters a certain string has in PHP, but
I am trying to understand how to use SyndicationItem to display feed which is
I have a string like this: La Torre Eiffel paragonata all’Everest What PHP function
I am reading a book about Javascript and jQuery and using one of the
I have a French site that I want to parse, but am running into
I want use html5's new tag to play a wav file (currently only supported
I'm using v2.0 of ClassTextile.php, with the following call: $testimonial_text = $textile->TextileRestricted($_POST['testimonial']); ... and
I'm parsing an RSS feed that has an ’ in it. SimpleXML turns this

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.