gavin/maybe
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 28 Wiki Activity

perf: Use UUIDv7 for Primary Key #2336

Closed
iuri-gg wants to merge 1 commits from use-uuid-v7 into main
pull from: use-uuid-v7
merge into: gavin:main
Conversation 1 Commits 1 Files Changed 5 +2720 -760
iuri-gg commented 2025-06-05 11:08:46 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

UUIDv7 has better index locality, which makes it more performant for large tables compared to UUIDv4. There is a nice article explaining the technical parts.

This PR introduces gen_uuid_v7 function in PG and updates all PK defaults to use it. I am hoping this will help DB query performance issues since the data will have better index locality. I am not sure if existing data needs to be migrated to fully utilize the benefit of UUIDv7.

UUIDv7 has better index locality, which makes it more performant for large tables compared to UUIDv4. There is a [nice article explaining the technical parts](https://dev.to/umangsinha12/postgresql-uuid-performance-benchmarking-random-v4-and-time-based-v7-uuids-n9b). This PR introduces `gen_uuid_v7` function in PG and updates all PK defaults to use it. I am hoping this will help DB query performance issues since the data will have better index locality. I am not sure if existing data needs to be migrated to fully utilize the benefit of UUIDv7.
zachgoll commented 2025-06-09 21:59:37 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Hey @iuri-gg thanks for the contribution here. Unfortunately I don't think we should merge this primarily due to the readability/complexity tradeoff. The cost of changing schema.rb -> structure.sql is pretty high and I don't think this performance improvement warrants that cost given that we're an OSS project and we want our code to be as easy to read and as predictable (for Rails devs) as possible.

Hey @iuri-gg thanks for the contribution here. Unfortunately I don't think we should merge this primarily due to the readability/complexity tradeoff. The cost of changing `schema.rb` -> `structure.sql` is pretty high and I don't think this performance improvement warrants that cost given that we're an OSS project and we want our code to be as easy to read and as predictable (for Rails devs) as possible.

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
📆 Planned
Not ready to be worked on yet, but planned for future
 💻 Self Hosted only
Issues pertaining to self-hosted versions of Maybe
 ⚙️ Config
ℹ️ Needs info
Further information is requested
 📱 Mobile
Bugs exclusively happening on mobile devices
 1️⃣ High Priority
High priority issues will be worked on next
 🚨 Urgent
Issues that are urgent for app functionality
 3️⃣ Low priority
Contributions accepted, but Maybe team will not be working on this in the near term
 2️⃣ Medium Priority
Community contributions accepted, Maybe team only works on if there are no high priority items open
 ⚡ Performance
Performance issues to address
 🎨 UI / UX
Issues related to UI / UX interactions and design.
 💎 Bounty
💰 Rewarded
📊 Data issue
Issues where the app functionally works, but the data is missing or inaccurate.
 🙋 Bounty claim
$1.5K
Community
This is a great issue for community members to work on
 dependencies
Pull requests that update a dependency file
 Design
Hosted only
Hosted app only
 Required self hoster data migration
Self hosters must run data migrations to resolve this issue
 ruby
Pull requests that update Ruby code
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
gavin
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: gavin/maybe#2336
Delete Branch "use-uuid-v7"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?