Every row, message, order and event needs an identifier. On a single database you let it hand out auto-increment numbers and never think about it again. Once you shard, run several regions, or create records before they reach a database (on a phone, in a queue consumer), you need another way to make IDs that never collide, without making one machine a bottleneck.
\nIn interviews this shows up as \"design a unique ID generator\" and, more often, inside other designs: the short code in a URL shortener or Pastebin, message IDs in a chat system, tweet IDs in a timeline. The interviewer wants to see that you know the options and what each one costs.
","headings":[]},{"id":"what-a-good-id-needs","title":"What a good ID needs","html":"Start by asking which properties matter. They pull against each other.
\nWHERE id < ? and sort without a separate timestamp. New rows also land at the right-hand end of a B-tree index, which keeps inserts cheap. Across machines, \"roughly\" is usually the best you can get, and that's normally fine. Twitter's term for this was k-sorted: in order to within some bound.BIGINT, a CPU register and most language integer types. 128 bits doubles the size of every primary key and every index entry that refers to it. The text form matters too, if IDs appear in URLs.Auto-increment (a sequence in PostgreSQL, AUTO_INCREMENT in MySQL) is compact, ordered and free. Its limits show up at scale:
Multi-master with a step. Give N database servers the same increment and different starting offsets. In MySQL, auto_increment_increment and auto_increment_offset do this: with two servers, one makes 1, 3, 5… and the other 2, 4, 6…. Collisions are gone, but adding a third server means changing the step everywhere, and the IDs aren't time-ordered across servers, because one server can run far ahead of the other.
Ticket servers. Flickr published a version of this in 2010. A dedicated MySQL instance does nothing but hand out numbers: each request does a REPLACE INTO on a one-row table and reads LAST_INSERT_ID(). Two ticket servers, one producing odd numbers and one even, remove the single point of failure. It's simple and works well up to the throughput of a database, but every ID is still a network call.
Range allocation. Instead of asking for one ID at a time, each application server reserves a block, say 1,000 IDs, with a single atomic update (UPDATE counters SET next = next + 1000 … RETURNING next) and hands them out from memory. Database load drops by a factor of 1,000, and a short database outage doesn't stop ID generation until the current block runs out. The cost: a crashed server leaves a gap of unused IDs, and IDs from different servers interleave out of time order.
UUIDs are 128-bit identifiers that any machine can make without asking anyone. The text form is 36 characters: 32 hex digits and 4 hyphens. RFC 9562 (2024) replaced the original RFC 4122 and added new versions, including version 7.
\nUUID v4 is 122 random bits; the other 6 bits mark the version and variant. Collisions are possible in theory and irrelevant in practice when the random source is good. By the birthday bound, you'd need about √(2 ln 2 × 2^122) ≈ 2.7 × 10^18 UUIDs for a 50% chance of a single duplicate. At a billion a second, that takes about 86 years. Real collisions come from bad randomness, such as cloned virtual machines with identical random state or weak generators, not from the math.
\nThe problem with v4 is databases. Random keys land all over the B-tree index, so every insert touches a random page. Once the index is bigger than memory, inserts cause disk reads and frequent page splits. In MySQL's InnoDB, rows are stored in primary-key order, and every secondary index stores the primary key too, so random 16-byte keys make the whole table slower and larger.
\nUUID v7 fixes that. Its first 48 bits are a Unix timestamp in milliseconds, followed by the version and variant bits and 74 bits that are random (the RFC also allows using some of them as a counter to keep IDs from one generator in strict order). IDs sort by creation time both as bytes and as text, so inserts append to the end of the index, as with auto-increment, while still needing no coordination. Some databases now generate it natively; PostgreSQL 18 added a uuidv7() function. The trade-off: anyone holding the ID can read its creation time.
Other versions exist. v1 uses a timestamp and the machine's MAC address, which leaks the address and doesn't sort well; v6 reorders v1's fields to sort properly. Unless you have a reason, use v7 for new keys and v4 when you specifically want no timing information.
\nOne warning applies to every version: RFC 9562 says implementations should not assume UUIDs are hard to guess. For password-reset links or API secrets, use a dedicated random token of 128 bits or more from a cryptographic generator.
","headings":[{"id":"uuids-v4-and-v7","title":"UUIDs: v4 and v7","depth":3}]},{"id":"snowflake-style-ids","title":"Snowflake-style IDs","html":"Twitter built Snowflake in 2010 while moving from MySQL to Cassandra, which has no auto-increment. It packs a timestamp, a machine number and a counter into one 64-bit integer:
\n 1 bit 41 bits 10 bits 12 bits\n+-----+--------------------------------+------------+------------+\n| 0 | milliseconds since your epoch | machine ID | sequence |\n+-----+--------------------------------+------------+------------+A generator needs only a few lines of code:
\nimport threading, time\n\nEPOCH_MS = 1_704_067_200_000 # 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z. Pick once, never change.\n\nclass Snowflake:\n def __init__(self, machine_id: int):\n assert 0 <= machine_id < 1024\n self.machine_id = machine_id\n self.last_ms = -1\n self.seq = 0\n self.lock = threading.Lock()\n\n def next_id(self) -> int:\n with self.lock:\n now = int(time.time() * 1000)\n if now < self.last_ms: # clock stepped backwards:\n now = self.last_ms # keep counting in the last millisecond\n if now == self.last_ms:\n self.seq = (self.seq + 1) & 0xFFF\n if self.seq == 0: # 4,096 IDs used up this millisecond\n while now <= self.last_ms:\n now = int(time.time() * 1000)\n else:\n self.seq = 0\n self.last_ms = now\n return ((now - EPOCH_MS) << 22) | (self.machine_id << 12) | self.seqThe interesting parts are the failure cases.
\nid_str fields and Discord sends IDs as strings in JSON.id % 16, nearly everything lands on shard 0. Hash the ID before taking the modulus, or shard on something else.Instagram used a variant in 2012: 41 bits of time, 13 bits of logical shard ID and 10 bits of sequence, generated inside PostgreSQL by a stored function. Putting the shard ID in the ID means you can find a row's shard from its ID alone.
","headings":[{"id":"snowflake-style-ids","title":"Snowflake-style IDs","depth":3}]},{"id":"ulid-and-other-formats","title":"ULID and other formats","html":"ULID is a community specification, not an IETF standard. It's 128 bits: a 48-bit millisecond timestamp followed by 80 random bits, written as 26 characters in Crockford's base32 (which avoids the easily confused letters I, L, O and U). ULIDs sort by time as text. The spec's monotonic mode increments the random part when two IDs are created in the same millisecond, so IDs from one generator stay in order.
\nULID and UUID v7 have nearly the same layout, and both fit in a 16-byte column. Choose v7 if your database, language and tooling already handle UUIDs. Choose ULID if a shorter, URL-friendly string matters and you're happy to depend on a library.
\nA few others you might meet:
\n| Scheme | Size | Sorted by time? | Coordination | Main risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auto-increment | 64 bits | yes, on one node | one database | write bottleneck; enumerable |
| Ticket server or ranges | 64 bits | roughly | central service (rarely, with ranges) | that service's availability; gaps |
| UUID v4 | 128 bits | no | none | index locality; size |
| UUID v7 | 128 bits | yes, to the ms | none | reveals creation time |
| Snowflake | 64 bits | yes, to the ms | assigning machine IDs | clock problems; 69-year range |
| ULID | 128 bits | yes, to the ms | none | non-standard; needs a library |
A sensible way to decide:
\nBIGINT columns): Snowflake-style, and budget time for machine ID assignment and clock handling.Whatever you choose, remember that time-based IDs only give rough order across machines, because clocks differ by milliseconds. If you need strict order within a scope, such as messages in one conversation, assign a per-scope sequence number at the single place that owns that scope.
","headings":[{"id":"choosing-between-them","title":"Choosing between them","depth":3}]},{"id":"check-yourself","title":"Check yourself","html":"Each shard creates user 1, 2, 3…, so IDs collide across shards. Any global lookup by ID becomes ambiguous, and you can't move a user to another shard without renumbering them. Set increment 4 and offsets 1–4 per shard, or move ID generation out of the shards entirely with Snowflake-style IDs or UUID v7, which also lets you add shards later without reconfiguring.
\n2^41 ms ≈ 69.7 years, so it runs out around September 2093. Counting from 1970 would have used up 54 of those years before the service ever ran, leaving it to overflow around 2039.
\nid % 16 keeps only the lowest 4 bits, which belong to the sequence counter. At low or moderate traffic most IDs are the first in their millisecond, so the sequence is 0 and those bits are 0. Hash the ID before taking the modulus, or shard by something with evenly spread values, such as a user ID's hash.
Random keys put each insert on a random page of the primary key index. Once the index no longer fits in memory, many inserts need a disk read first, and pages split often. Switching new rows to UUID v7 makes inserts land next to each other in one narrow, advancing region of the index, which stays in memory. (With old v4 keys spread across the whole range, that region isn't the right-hand edge, but the effect on caching is the same.) Existing rows can keep their v4 IDs, since both fit the same column type.
\nYes. The IDs come from different machines whose clocks can differ by a few milliseconds, so the later message can get the smaller ID. Usually that's acceptable. If you need a strict order that everyone agrees on, have the service that owns the conversation assign a per-conversation sequence number as it accepts each message.
\n