Auto increment id column vs index VARCHAR columns
I'm wondering the differences or comparisons of having an Auto Increment int Id column or an indexed VARCHAR(32) column. Which one would be faster if I had a second table that references the first table by joining? Like in the second table, would I store the Auto Increment INT id or the indexed VARCHAR column? What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any?
Which would be the more common practice? Create Auto Increment id column for almost every table? Or we can simply index a column that has a unique 36-char ID (like in SugarCRM) so the other tables can just use that when doing joins? I hope I explained my question fairly clear.
mysql index
asked Jun 24 '16 at 9:50
TurtleTreadTurtleTread
1012
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 25 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
I'm wondering the differences or comparisons of having an Auto Increment int Id column or an indexed VARCHAR(32) column. Which one would be faster if I had a second table that references the first table by joining? Like in the second table, would I store the Auto Increment INT id or the indexed VARCHAR column? What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any?
Which would be the more common practice? Create Auto Increment id column for almost every table? Or we can simply index a column that has a unique 36-char ID (like in SugarCRM) so the other tables can just use that when doing joins? I hope I explained my question fairly clear.
mysql index
asked Jun 24 '16 at 9:50
TurtleTreadTurtleTread
1012
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 25 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Sounds like you have UUIDs. UseBINARY(16), notVARCHAR(36). If used as foreign key, it won't be as good asINT(4 bytes) orBIGINT(8 bytes) but still 16 is far better than 36.
– yper-crazyhat-cubeᵀᴹ
Jun 24 '16 at 10:26
Ok. Yea I remember now about the hexadecimal id's.
– TurtleTread
Jun 24 '16 at 10:51
add a comment |
I'm wondering the differences or comparisons of having an Auto Increment int Id column or an indexed VARCHAR(32) column. Which one would be faster if I had a second table that references the first table by joining? Like in the second table, would I store the Auto Increment INT id or the indexed VARCHAR column? What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any?
Which would be the more common practice? Create Auto Increment id column for almost every table? Or we can simply index a column that has a unique 36-char ID (like in SugarCRM) so the other tables can just use that when doing joins? I hope I explained my question fairly clear.
mysql index
asked Jun 24 '16 at 9:50
TurtleTreadTurtleTread
1012
I'm wondering the differences or comparisons of having an Auto Increment int Id column or an indexed VARCHAR(32) column. Which one would be faster if I had a second table that references the first table by joining? Like in the second table, would I store the Auto Increment INT id or the indexed VARCHAR column? What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any?
Which would be the more common practice? Create Auto Increment id column for almost every table? Or we can simply index a column that has a unique 36-char ID (like in SugarCRM) so the other tables can just use that when doing joins? I hope I explained my question fairly clear.
mysql index
mysql index
asked Jun 24 '16 at 9:50
TurtleTreadTurtleTread
1012
asked Jun 24 '16 at 9:50
TurtleTreadTurtleTread
1012
asked Jun 24 '16 at 9:50
TurtleTreadTurtleTread
1012
asked Jun 24 '16 at 9:50
TurtleTreadTurtleTread
1012
asked Jun 24 '16 at 9:50
TurtleTreadTurtleTread
1012
1012
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 25 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 25 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Sounds like you have UUIDs. UseBINARY(16), notVARCHAR(36). If used as foreign key, it won't be as good asINT(4 bytes) orBIGINT(8 bytes) but still 16 is far better than 36.
– yper-crazyhat-cubeᵀᴹ
Jun 24 '16 at 10:26
Ok. Yea I remember now about the hexadecimal id's.
– TurtleTread
Jun 24 '16 at 10:51
add a comment |
Sounds like you have UUIDs. UseBINARY(16), notVARCHAR(36). If used as foreign key, it won't be as good asINT(4 bytes) orBIGINT(8 bytes) but still 16 is far better than 36.
– yper-crazyhat-cubeᵀᴹ
Jun 24 '16 at 10:26
Ok. Yea I remember now about the hexadecimal id's.
– TurtleTread
Jun 24 '16 at 10:51
Sounds like you have UUIDs. Use
BINARY(16), not VARCHAR(36). If used as foreign key, it won't be as good as INT (4 bytes) or BIGINT (8 bytes) but still 16 is far better than 36.– yper-crazyhat-cubeᵀᴹ
Jun 24 '16 at 10:26
Sounds like you have UUIDs. Use
BINARY(16), not VARCHAR(36). If used as foreign key, it won't be as good as INT (4 bytes) or BIGINT (8 bytes) but still 16 is far better than 36.– yper-crazyhat-cubeᵀᴹ
Jun 24 '16 at 10:26
Ok. Yea I remember now about the hexadecimal id's.
– TurtleTread
Jun 24 '16 at 10:51
Ok. Yea I remember now about the hexadecimal id's.
– TurtleTread
Jun 24 '16 at 10:51
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
UUIDs are terrible when the table becomes too large to be cached. (If your table will never get very big, you can ignore the rest of my rant.)
The problem comes with the randomness of UUIDs. You fetch one row; it's in one place. You fetch another row, it is extremely likely to be in some other block. This leads to lots of I/O.
In contrast, AUTO_INCREMENT ids are inserted in roughly chronological order. A bunch (say, 100) rows will land in one block before moving on to the next block. This makes INSERTs efficient. It often makes reads efficient, too -- because often you are looking for records of similar vintage -- such as with a date range.
Think of News articles. Most people look at the latest news; the older records collect dust in the cache until they are bumped out. So, the cache tends to keep the latest rows. With UUIDs, old and new articles share the same block.
More on UUIDs.
answered Jul 4 '16 at 1:03
Rick JamesRick James
41.2k22258
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142135%2fauto-increment-id-column-vs-index-varchar-columns%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
UUIDs are terrible when the table becomes too large to be cached. (If your table will never get very big, you can ignore the rest of my rant.)
The problem comes with the randomness of UUIDs. You fetch one row; it's in one place. You fetch another row, it is extremely likely to be in some other block. This leads to lots of I/O.
In contrast, AUTO_INCREMENT ids are inserted in roughly chronological order. A bunch (say, 100) rows will land in one block before moving on to the next block. This makes INSERTs efficient. It often makes reads efficient, too -- because often you are looking for records of similar vintage -- such as with a date range.
Think of News articles. Most people look at the latest news; the older records collect dust in the cache until they are bumped out. So, the cache tends to keep the latest rows. With UUIDs, old and new articles share the same block.
More on UUIDs.
answered Jul 4 '16 at 1:03
Rick JamesRick James
41.2k22258
add a comment |
UUIDs are terrible when the table becomes too large to be cached. (If your table will never get very big, you can ignore the rest of my rant.)
The problem comes with the randomness of UUIDs. You fetch one row; it's in one place. You fetch another row, it is extremely likely to be in some other block. This leads to lots of I/O.
In contrast, AUTO_INCREMENT ids are inserted in roughly chronological order. A bunch (say, 100) rows will land in one block before moving on to the next block. This makes INSERTs efficient. It often makes reads efficient, too -- because often you are looking for records of similar vintage -- such as with a date range.
Think of News articles. Most people look at the latest news; the older records collect dust in the cache until they are bumped out. So, the cache tends to keep the latest rows. With UUIDs, old and new articles share the same block.
More on UUIDs.
answered Jul 4 '16 at 1:03
Rick JamesRick James
41.2k22258
add a comment |
UUIDs are terrible when the table becomes too large to be cached. (If your table will never get very big, you can ignore the rest of my rant.)
The problem comes with the randomness of UUIDs. You fetch one row; it's in one place. You fetch another row, it is extremely likely to be in some other block. This leads to lots of I/O.
In contrast, AUTO_INCREMENT ids are inserted in roughly chronological order. A bunch (say, 100) rows will land in one block before moving on to the next block. This makes INSERTs efficient. It often makes reads efficient, too -- because often you are looking for records of similar vintage -- such as with a date range.
Think of News articles. Most people look at the latest news; the older records collect dust in the cache until they are bumped out. So, the cache tends to keep the latest rows. With UUIDs, old and new articles share the same block.
More on UUIDs.
answered Jul 4 '16 at 1:03
Rick JamesRick James
41.2k22258
UUIDs are terrible when the table becomes too large to be cached. (If your table will never get very big, you can ignore the rest of my rant.)
The problem comes with the randomness of UUIDs. You fetch one row; it's in one place. You fetch another row, it is extremely likely to be in some other block. This leads to lots of I/O.
In contrast, AUTO_INCREMENT ids are inserted in roughly chronological order. A bunch (say, 100) rows will land in one block before moving on to the next block. This makes INSERTs efficient. It often makes reads efficient, too -- because often you are looking for records of similar vintage -- such as with a date range.
Think of News articles. Most people look at the latest news; the older records collect dust in the cache until they are bumped out. So, the cache tends to keep the latest rows. With UUIDs, old and new articles share the same block.
More on UUIDs.
answered Jul 4 '16 at 1:03
Rick JamesRick James
41.2k22258
answered Jul 4 '16 at 1:03
Rick JamesRick James
41.2k22258
answered Jul 4 '16 at 1:03
Rick JamesRick James
41.2k22258
answered Jul 4 '16 at 1:03
Rick JamesRick James
41.2k22258
41.2k22258
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142135%2fauto-increment-id-column-vs-index-varchar-columns%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Sounds like you have UUIDs. Use
BINARY(16), notVARCHAR(36). If used as foreign key, it won't be as good asINT(4 bytes) orBIGINT(8 bytes) but still 16 is far better than 36.– yper-crazyhat-cubeᵀᴹ
Jun 24 '16 at 10:26
Ok. Yea I remember now about the hexadecimal id's.
– TurtleTread
Jun 24 '16 at 10:51