The Proof that a GUID is not unique
-
Searching for the number of possible GUIDs (answering questions in the forum section) I struggled over this amusing SO Thread where they are seriously discussing how the non-unique nature of a GUID can be proofed. Enjoy[^] Edit -> Here is my answer to the said question (can you think of a creative one yourself?):
Quote:
A Guid is 128 bit. Therefore you would have to generate 2^128 + 1 GUIDs to encounter a single GUID twice. A thread on StackOverflow.com[^] says that you would need about 10790283070806014188970 years to encounter a single GUID twice, assuming your program does nothing else than creating GUIDs and runs at a processor speed of 1 GhZ, without any interruption by CPU power eaten by other programs or the operating system itself. As you probably can think now, encountering the same GUID twice would be very bad luck and can safely considered as being unrealistic.
People becoming wiser in order to notice the stupid things they did back in the young days. This doesn't mean that they really stop doing those things. Wise people still do stupid things, only on purpose.
With GUID we talk about probability not certainty. Even we have a GUID generator that really generates unique id, at the moment we run it in multiply locations we lost event the theory of uniqueness...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is (V).
-
Searching for the number of possible GUIDs (answering questions in the forum section) I struggled over this amusing SO Thread where they are seriously discussing how the non-unique nature of a GUID can be proofed. Enjoy[^] Edit -> Here is my answer to the said question (can you think of a creative one yourself?):
Quote:
A Guid is 128 bit. Therefore you would have to generate 2^128 + 1 GUIDs to encounter a single GUID twice. A thread on StackOverflow.com[^] says that you would need about 10790283070806014188970 years to encounter a single GUID twice, assuming your program does nothing else than creating GUIDs and runs at a processor speed of 1 GhZ, without any interruption by CPU power eaten by other programs or the operating system itself. As you probably can think now, encountering the same GUID twice would be very bad luck and can safely considered as being unrealistic.
People becoming wiser in order to notice the stupid things they did back in the young days. This doesn't mean that they really stop doing those things. Wise people still do stupid things, only on purpose.
I still try discourage everyone from using GUID's if it's not truly necessary. 1. Waste of disk space, if an 32bit integer is sufficient why use a GUID? 2. Waste of processing power, more expensive to create, more expensive to compare against etc. 3. GUID is way more difficult to read for humans Sure there are uses for it but in most cases you're perfectly fine without them.
-
Searching for the number of possible GUIDs (answering questions in the forum section) I struggled over this amusing SO Thread where they are seriously discussing how the non-unique nature of a GUID can be proofed. Enjoy[^] Edit -> Here is my answer to the said question (can you think of a creative one yourself?):
Quote:
A Guid is 128 bit. Therefore you would have to generate 2^128 + 1 GUIDs to encounter a single GUID twice. A thread on StackOverflow.com[^] says that you would need about 10790283070806014188970 years to encounter a single GUID twice, assuming your program does nothing else than creating GUIDs and runs at a processor speed of 1 GhZ, without any interruption by CPU power eaten by other programs or the operating system itself. As you probably can think now, encountering the same GUID twice would be very bad luck and can safely considered as being unrealistic.
People becoming wiser in order to notice the stupid things they did back in the young days. This doesn't mean that they really stop doing those things. Wise people still do stupid things, only on purpose.
-
Searching for the number of possible GUIDs (answering questions in the forum section) I struggled over this amusing SO Thread where they are seriously discussing how the non-unique nature of a GUID can be proofed. Enjoy[^] Edit -> Here is my answer to the said question (can you think of a creative one yourself?):
Quote:
A Guid is 128 bit. Therefore you would have to generate 2^128 + 1 GUIDs to encounter a single GUID twice. A thread on StackOverflow.com[^] says that you would need about 10790283070806014188970 years to encounter a single GUID twice, assuming your program does nothing else than creating GUIDs and runs at a processor speed of 1 GhZ, without any interruption by CPU power eaten by other programs or the operating system itself. As you probably can think now, encountering the same GUID twice would be very bad luck and can safely considered as being unrealistic.
People becoming wiser in order to notice the stupid things they did back in the young days. This doesn't mean that they really stop doing those things. Wise people still do stupid things, only on purpose.
That's why I don't use GUIDs. :-D
"If A is a success in life, then A=x+y+z. (Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.)"
-
Searching for the number of possible GUIDs (answering questions in the forum section) I struggled over this amusing SO Thread where they are seriously discussing how the non-unique nature of a GUID can be proofed. Enjoy[^] Edit -> Here is my answer to the said question (can you think of a creative one yourself?):
Quote:
A Guid is 128 bit. Therefore you would have to generate 2^128 + 1 GUIDs to encounter a single GUID twice. A thread on StackOverflow.com[^] says that you would need about 10790283070806014188970 years to encounter a single GUID twice, assuming your program does nothing else than creating GUIDs and runs at a processor speed of 1 GhZ, without any interruption by CPU power eaten by other programs or the operating system itself. As you probably can think now, encountering the same GUID twice would be very bad luck and can safely considered as being unrealistic.
People becoming wiser in order to notice the stupid things they did back in the young days. This doesn't mean that they really stop doing those things. Wise people still do stupid things, only on purpose.
It must be unique, because it has "unique" in the name. Otherwise, it would have been a GNUID. And anyway, I don't think the Internet would be lying at us like that.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
While you smart arses are arguing the toss I've just seen another duplicate GUID pass by. :)
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
You sure? They are a lot like snowflakes: if you look at the fine detail they aren't the same. :laugh:
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger. English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
-
Searching for the number of possible GUIDs (answering questions in the forum section) I struggled over this amusing SO Thread where they are seriously discussing how the non-unique nature of a GUID can be proofed. Enjoy[^] Edit -> Here is my answer to the said question (can you think of a creative one yourself?):
Quote:
A Guid is 128 bit. Therefore you would have to generate 2^128 + 1 GUIDs to encounter a single GUID twice. A thread on StackOverflow.com[^] says that you would need about 10790283070806014188970 years to encounter a single GUID twice, assuming your program does nothing else than creating GUIDs and runs at a processor speed of 1 GhZ, without any interruption by CPU power eaten by other programs or the operating system itself. As you probably can think now, encountering the same GUID twice would be very bad luck and can safely considered as being unrealistic.
People becoming wiser in order to notice the stupid things they did back in the young days. This doesn't mean that they really stop doing those things. Wise people still do stupid things, only on purpose.
There is a finite number of possible values for a GUID. No finite number can be guaranteed unique. It's not that difficult.
-
Searching for the number of possible GUIDs (answering questions in the forum section) I struggled over this amusing SO Thread where they are seriously discussing how the non-unique nature of a GUID can be proofed. Enjoy[^] Edit -> Here is my answer to the said question (can you think of a creative one yourself?):
Quote:
A Guid is 128 bit. Therefore you would have to generate 2^128 + 1 GUIDs to encounter a single GUID twice. A thread on StackOverflow.com[^] says that you would need about 10790283070806014188970 years to encounter a single GUID twice, assuming your program does nothing else than creating GUIDs and runs at a processor speed of 1 GhZ, without any interruption by CPU power eaten by other programs or the operating system itself. As you probably can think now, encountering the same GUID twice would be very bad luck and can safely considered as being unrealistic.
People becoming wiser in order to notice the stupid things they did back in the young days. This doesn't mean that they really stop doing those things. Wise people still do stupid things, only on purpose.
-
You sure? They are a lot like snowflakes: if you look at the fine detail they aren't the same. :laugh:
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger. English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
Quote:
They are a lot like snowflakes:
Funny you bring that up. Recently a scientist claimed to have found many duplicates after cataloging many, many snowflakes. Of course they aren't unique.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Searching for the number of possible GUIDs (answering questions in the forum section) I struggled over this amusing SO Thread where they are seriously discussing how the non-unique nature of a GUID can be proofed. Enjoy[^] Edit -> Here is my answer to the said question (can you think of a creative one yourself?):
Quote:
A Guid is 128 bit. Therefore you would have to generate 2^128 + 1 GUIDs to encounter a single GUID twice. A thread on StackOverflow.com[^] says that you would need about 10790283070806014188970 years to encounter a single GUID twice, assuming your program does nothing else than creating GUIDs and runs at a processor speed of 1 GhZ, without any interruption by CPU power eaten by other programs or the operating system itself. As you probably can think now, encountering the same GUID twice would be very bad luck and can safely considered as being unrealistic.
People becoming wiser in order to notice the stupid things they did back in the young days. This doesn't mean that they really stop doing those things. Wise people still do stupid things, only on purpose.
Only it's not really 128 "random" bits[^]. For example, time value will roll over at less than 1400 years.
-
It must be unique, because it has "unique" in the name. Otherwise, it would have been a GNUID. And anyway, I don't think the Internet would be lying at us like that.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
I still try discourage everyone from using GUID's if it's not truly necessary. 1. Waste of disk space, if an 32bit integer is sufficient why use a GUID? 2. Waste of processing power, more expensive to create, more expensive to compare against etc. 3. GUID is way more difficult to read for humans Sure there are uses for it but in most cases you're perfectly fine without them.
Nicholas Marty wrote:
3. GUID is way more difficult to read for humans
So what? IDs are meant to be meaningless; so that's a good thing. Even with integers you'll likely wind up just copying-and-pasting anyway. Or do this: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000002 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000003 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000004 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000005
-
While you smart arses are arguing the toss I've just seen another duplicate GUID pass by. :)
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
Yikes! It's like encountering your doppelgänger in the street.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
-
I have always argued (mostly unsuccessfully) that any system that aims to be reliable cannot depend on the uniqueness of GUIDs. There is no problem that they solve that cannot also be solved in a way that is guaranteed to be reliable (although the solution may be more complex) Sure, it may not happen, but it can happen.
Yep, I always work on the principal that a GUID may be duplicated so I add Ticks since the Epoch or something like that to my GUIDs because Ticks should only ever increase. The chances of getting the exact same ticks in milliseconds AND a duplicate GUID are not gunna happen! you're welcome :)
-
Yep, I always work on the principal that a GUID may be duplicated so I add Ticks since the Epoch or something like that to my GUIDs because Ticks should only ever increase. The chances of getting the exact same ticks in milliseconds AND a duplicate GUID are not gunna happen! you're welcome :)
You don't need to add a surrogate key containing a “tick”, because GUIDs already have such a field.
-
Quote:
They are a lot like snowflakes:
Funny you bring that up. Recently a scientist claimed to have found many duplicates after cataloging many, many snowflakes. Of course they aren't unique.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
-
Only it's not really 128 "random" bits[^]. For example, time value will roll over at less than 1400 years.
Quote:
For example, time value will roll over at less than 1400 years.
Oh My! Prepare for Year 3400 panic - all the COBOL code will have to be updated all over again.
-
I still try discourage everyone from using GUID's if it's not truly necessary. 1. Waste of disk space, if an 32bit integer is sufficient why use a GUID? 2. Waste of processing power, more expensive to create, more expensive to compare against etc. 3. GUID is way more difficult to read for humans Sure there are uses for it but in most cases you're perfectly fine without them.
-
Searching for the number of possible GUIDs (answering questions in the forum section) I struggled over this amusing SO Thread where they are seriously discussing how the non-unique nature of a GUID can be proofed. Enjoy[^] Edit -> Here is my answer to the said question (can you think of a creative one yourself?):
Quote:
A Guid is 128 bit. Therefore you would have to generate 2^128 + 1 GUIDs to encounter a single GUID twice. A thread on StackOverflow.com[^] says that you would need about 10790283070806014188970 years to encounter a single GUID twice, assuming your program does nothing else than creating GUIDs and runs at a processor speed of 1 GhZ, without any interruption by CPU power eaten by other programs or the operating system itself. As you probably can think now, encountering the same GUID twice would be very bad luck and can safely considered as being unrealistic.
People becoming wiser in order to notice the stupid things they did back in the young days. This doesn't mean that they really stop doing those things. Wise people still do stupid things, only on purpose.
Of course it is possible to generate a non-unique GUIDs, but if you use a reliable implementation of a good generation algorithm, you can be reasonably confident that GUIDs will be unique within the context that matters. The only time I have seen problems was when using an unreliable implementation - NetWare 5 used to have problems with duplicate GUIDs being generated when timesync caused the clock to go backwards.
