any thoughts on uuidv7 vs ulid, nanoid, etc for url-safe encodings?

clintonb 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I prefer TypeID: https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid

nikisweeting a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

ULID is the best balance imo, it's more compact, can be double clicked to select, and case-insensitive so it can be saved on macOS filesystems without conflicts.

Now someone should make a UUIDv7 -> ULID adapter lib that 1:1 translates UUIDv7 <-> ULID preserving all the timestamp resolution and randomness bits so we can use the db-level UUIDv7 support to store ULIDs.

▲

masklinn a day ago | parent [-]

A uuid is a 128b number with a specific structure. You can encode them in base32 if you want, there is no need for any sort of conversion scheme.

▲

nikisweeting a day ago | parent [-]

You need to convert it to perserve the timestamp info correctly so that a ULID library reading the base32 format would reproduce the same timestamp.

	▲	masklinn a day ago \| parent [-]
		What I'm saying is that ULID is irrelevant and unnecessary, if you want "double clicked to select, and case-insensitive" you just encode your UUIDs in base32. They're still UUIDs.

▲

thewisenerd a day ago | parent | prev [-]

i guess that depends on what you mean by url-safe

uuidv7 (-) and nanoid (_-) have special characters which urlencode to themselves.

none are small enough that you want someone reading them over the phone; but from a character legibility, ulid makes more sense.