61–70 of 369 posts
Funny story no one will believe, but it’s true. A good friend of mine joined a startup as CTO 10 years ago, high growth phase, maybe 200 devs… In his first week he discovered the company had a microservice for generating new UUIDs. One endpoint with its own dedicated team of 3 engineers …including a database guy (the plot thickens). Other teams were instructed to call this service every time they needed a new ‘safe’…
Please, do not use b6133fd6-70fe-4fe3-bed6-8ca8fc9386cd, I checked my database and I was using it already.
You're welcome.
Why not to have timestamp-uuid instead ?
How confident are you that your machines clocks are in perfect sync? What about the risk of clock drift + correction, or hardware issues?
Just a stupid question, but why not append the date, even in seconds as hex. It's just a few bytes and would guarantee that everything OK now will be OK in the future?
yeah, any sort of additional semi-random data could've helped prevent this, I'm sure. That, however, is also kind of the idea of UUIDv4, it has lots of randomness and time built in already.
I fully agree. It makes no sense. Yet... The only guesses I'm having is that we originally generated UUIDv4s on a user's phone before sending it to the database, and the UUID generated this morning that collided was created on an Ubuntu server. I don't fully know how UUIDv4s are generated and what (if anything) about the machine it's being generated on is part of the algorithm, but that's really the only change I can…
You let users generate a UUID? To be honest, the chance that you are doing something weird is probably higher than you experiencing a real UUID conflict. How did your database 'flag' that conflict?
Sure, it's something I'd flag in any design to spend two minutes to talk about potential security implications. But usually there aren't any
I fully agree. It makes no sense. Yet... The only guesses I'm having is that we originally generated UUIDv4s on a user's phone before sending it to the database, and the UUID generated this morning that collided was created on an Ubuntu server. I don't fully know how UUIDv4s are generated and what (if anything) about the machine it's being generated on is part of the algorithm, but that's really the only change I can…
But on a server that shouldn't happen, especially not in 2026 (in the past, seeding the rngs of VMs used to be a bit of an issue). Even if one UUID was badly generated, a truly random UUID statistically shouldn't collide with it. You'd need an issue in both generators
What you're talking about is so extremely rare that it's much more likely that the entire Earth is destroyed by an asteroid right this inst...
Funny story no one will believe, but it’s true. A good friend of mine joined a startup as CTO 10 years ago, high growth phase, maybe 200 devs… In his first week he discovered the company had a microservice for generating new UUIDs. One endpoint with its own dedicated team of 3 engineers …including a database guy (the plot thickens). Other teams were instructed to call this service every time they needed a new ‘safe’…
This even allows you to shard the service to provide high availability and distribute the service globally to reduce latency. Just give each instance a dedicated id range it can hand out. I'd suggest reserving some of the high bits to indicate data center id, and a couple more bits for id-generator instance within that dc.
Wait a second, this starts to look familiar ... does Twitter still do that, or did they eventually switch?
> I thought this is technically impossible Actually it's not impossible, but very very improbable. P.S. You should play a lottery/powerball ticket P.P.S. Whenever I use the word improbable, the https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Infinite_Improbability_D... comes in mind
Funny story no one will believe, but it’s true. A good friend of mine joined a startup as CTO 10 years ago, high growth phase, maybe 200 devs… In his first week he discovered the company had a microservice for generating new UUIDs. One endpoint with its own dedicated team of 3 engineers …including a database guy (the plot thickens). Other teams were instructed to call this service every time they needed a new ‘safe’…
Their process was a bit more complex because the master list of in-use UUIDs was stored in an external CMDB service run by a different department. They got a daily dump of that db, so were able to check that when generating a "provisional" id. Only once it had been properly submitted to the CMDB did it became "confirmed".
They had guardrails in place to prevent "provisional" ids being used in production, and a process for recycling unused "confirmed" ids. Oh, and they did regular audits which were taken very seriously by management.
Last I heard, they were 18 months into a 6 month project to move their local database cache to Zookeeper...