←back to thread

ULID: Universally Unique Lexicographically Sortable Identifier

(packagemain.tech)
68 points der_gopher | 1 comments | 01 Dec 25 20:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
sedatk ◴[09 Dec 25 22:26 UTC] No.46211578[source]▶
Whenever ULID comes up, I need to remind that it has a sequential ID generation mode in its spec which is prone to conflicts on multi-threads, processes or hosts which kills the purpose of a "universal" identifier. If you need a sequential ID, just use an integer, preferably one that's autoincremented by the database.

It's best to stick to UUIDv7 because of such quirks of ULID.

replies(6): >>46212131 #>>46212144 #>>46212658 #>>46212724 #>>46213359 #>>46213609 #
marifjeren ◴[10 Dec 25 00:40 UTC] No.46212658[source]▶
> If you need a sequential ID, just use an integer

Are monotonic/sequential ULIDs as easily enumerated as integers? It's the ease of enumerability that keeps a lot of folks away from using sequential integers as IDs

replies(1): >>46212850 #
sedatk ◴[10 Dec 25 01:08 UTC] No.46212850[source]▶
You mean someone who wants to attack your system might be discouraged by Base32 encoding?
replies(1): >>46213044 #
1. marifjeren ◴[10 Dec 25 01:36 UTC] No.46213044[source]▶
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the ULID spec. You seem to be, hence my asking. Are you saying monotonic/sequential ULIDs are just (or just as easily enumerated as) Base32-encoded integers?

Oh and yeah, I guess I do think lots of script / AI kiddies would be discouraged by, or fail to see an opportunity when presented with, something that does not look like the numbers they saw in school.