The problem is that companies tend to only hire DB expertise when things are dire, and then, the dev teams inevitably are resistant to change.
You can monitor and predict the growth rate of a table; if you don’t know you’re going to hit the limit of an INT well in advance, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Re: auto-incrementing locks, I have never once observed that to be a source of contention. Most DBs are around 98/2% read/write. If you happen to have an extremely INSERT-heavy workload, then by all means, consider alternatives, like interleaved batches or whatever. It does not matter for most places.
I agree that UUIDv7 is miles better than v4, but you’re still storing far more data than is probably necessary. And re: 16 bytes, MySQL annoyingly doesn’t natively have a UUID type, and most people don’t seem to know about casting it to binary and storing it as BINARY(16), so instead you get a 36-byte PK. The worst.
Comments
The problem is that companies tend to only hire DB expertise when things are dire, and then, the dev teams inevitably are resistant to change.
You can monitor and predict the growth rate of a table; if you don’t know you’re going to hit the limit of an INT well in advance, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Re: auto-incrementing locks, I have never once observed that to be a source of contention. Most DBs are around 98/2% read/write. If you happen to have an extremely INSERT-heavy workload, then by all means, consider alternatives, like interleaved batches or whatever. It does not matter for most places.
I agree that UUIDv7 is miles better than v4, but you’re still storing far more data than is probably necessary. And re: 16 bytes, MySQL annoyingly doesn’t natively have a UUID type, and most people don’t seem to know about casting it to binary and storing it as BINARY(16), so instead you get a 36-byte PK. The worst.