To whom it may concern. Surrogate keys: auto-increment or UUID?I recently overheard a statement about whether to use auto-incrementing id's (i.e, a sequence managed by the RDBMS) or universal unique identifiers (UUIDs) as method for generating surrogate key values. LeakinessMuch has been written about this subject with regard to storage space, query performance and so on, but in this particular case the main consideration was leakiness. Leakiness in this case means that key values convey information about the state of the system that we didn't intend to disclose. Auto-incrementing id's are leakyFor example, suppose you would subscribe to a new social media site, and you get assigned a personal profile page which looks like this:
http://social.media.site/user/67638
Suppose that 67638 is the auto-incrementing key
value that was uniquely assigned to the profile. If that were the
case then we could wait a day and create a new profile. We could
then compare the key values and use it to estimate how many new
profiles were created during that day. This might not necessarily
be very sensitive information, but the point here is that by
exposing the key values, the system exposes information that it
didn't intend to disclose (or at least not in that way). Are
UUIDs leaky?So clearly, auto-incrementing keys are leaky. The
question is, are UUIDs less leaky? Because if that's the case,
then that might weigh in on your consideration to choose for a
UUID surrogate key. As it turns out, this question can be
answered with the universal but always unsatisfactory answer that
"it depends". Not all UUIDs are created equal, and wikipedia lists 5 different variants. This is not
an exhaustive list, since vendors can (and so, probably will)
invent their own variants. MySQL UUIDsIn this article I want to
focus on MySQL's implementation. MySQL has two different
functions that generate UUIDs: UUID() and UUID_SHORT(). Are MySQL UUIDs
leaky?If you follow the links and read the documentation, then we
can easily give a definitive answer, which is: yes, MySQL UUIDs
are leaky:
-
UUID()implements a version 1 UUID, which is generated according to DCE 1.1: Remote Procedure Call (Appendix A) CAE (Common Applications Environment). Type 1 UUIDs are also described by RFC1422, "A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace". In short, it consists of a timestamp and a MAC address, plus some addition data to ensure uniqueness. If you want to check the MySQL source code, look for the functionString *Item_func_uuid::val_str(String *str)initem_strfunc.cc. -
UUID_SHORT()doesn't seem to conform to any particular external standard, but it contains the server's id as well as its startime, plus some extra data to ensure unicity. The MySQL source code for this islonglong Item_func_uuid_short::val_int()initem_func.cc.
It is not my role to judge whether this leakiness is better or worse than the leakiness of auto-incrementing keys, I'm just providing the information so you can decide whether it affects you or not. Hacking MySQL UUID valuesNow, on to the fun bit. Let's hack MySQL UUIDs and extract meaningful information. Because we can.
Credit where credit's due: Although the documentation and MySQL source code contain all the information, I had a lot of benefit from the inconspicuously-looking but otherwise excellent website from the Kruithof family. It provides a neat recipe for extracting timestamp and MAC address from type 1 UUIDs. Thanks!
Here's a graphical representation of the recipe:
Without further ado, here come the hacks: Extracting the timestamp from a MySQL UUIDHere's how:
select uid AS uid
, from_unixtime(
(conv(
concat( -- step 1: reconstruct hexadecimal timestamp
substring(uid, 16, 3)
, substring(uid, 10, 4)
, substring(uid, 1, 8)
), 16, 10) -- step 2: convert hexadecimal to decimal
div 10 div 1000 div 1000 -- step 3: go from nanoseconds to seconds
) - (141427 * 24 * 60 * 60) -- step 4: substract timestamp offset (October 15,
) AS uuid_to_timestamp
, current_timestamp() AS timestamp
from (select uuid() uid) AS alias;
Here's an example result:
+--------------------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| uid | uuid_to_timestamp | timestamp |
+--------------------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| a89e6d7b-f2ec-11e3-bcfb-5c514fe65f28 | 2014-06-13 13:20:00 | 2014-06-13 13:20:00 |
+--------------------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)
The query works by first obtaining the value from UUID(). I use a
subquery in the from clause for that, which aliases the
UUID() function call to uid. This
allows other expressions to manipulate the same uid value. You
cannot simply call the UUID() multiple times, since
it generates a new unique value each time you call it. The raw
value of uid is shown as well, which
is:a89e6d7b-f2ec-11e3-bcfb-5c514fe65f28. Most people
will recognize this as 5 hexadecimal fields, separated by dashes.
The first step is to extract and re-order parts of the uid to
reconstruct a valid timestamp:
- Characters 16-18 form the most significant part of the
timestamp. In our example that's
1e3; the last 3 characters of the third field in the uid. - Characters 10-13 form the middle part timestamp. In our
example that's
f2ec; this corresponds to the second field - Characters 1-8 form the least significant part of the
timestamp. In our example that's
a89e6d7b; this is the first field of the uid.
Extracting the parts is easy enough with SUBSTRING(), and we can use
CONCAT() to glue the parts into
the right order; that is, putting the most to least significant
parts of the timestamp in a left-to-right order. The hexadecimal
timestamp is now 1e3f2eca89e6d7b.
The second step is to convert the hexadecimal timestamp to a
decimal value. We can do that using CONV(hextimestamp, 16, 10), where
16 represents the number base of the hexadecimal
input timestamp, and 10 represents the number base
of output value.
We now have a timestamp, but it is in a 100-nanosecond
resolution. So the third step is to divide so that we get back to
seconds resolution. We can safely use a DIV integer division. First we
divide by 10 to go from 100-nanosecond resolution to
microseconds; then by 1000 to go to milliseconds,
and then again by 1000 to go from milliseconds to
seconds.
We now have a timestamp expressed as the number of seconds since
the date of Gregorian reform to the Christian calendar, which is
set at October 15, 1582. We can easily convert this to unix
time by subtracting the number of seconds between that date
and January 1, 1970 (i.e. the start date for unix time). I
suppose there are nicer ways to express that, but 141427 *
24 * 60 * 60 is the value we need to do the conversion.
We now have a unix timestamp, and MySQL offers the FROM_UNIXTIME() function to go
from unix time to a MySQL timestamp value.
Extracting the MAC address from a MySQL UUIDThe last field of type 1 UUID's is the so-called node id. On BSD and Linux platforms, MySQL uses the MAC address to create the node id. The following query extracts the MAC address in the familiar colon-separated representation:
select uid AS uid
, concat(
substring(uid, 25,2)
, ':', substring(uid, 27,2)
, ':', substring(uid, 29,2)
, ':', substring(uid, 31,2)
, ':', substring(uid, 33,2)
, ':', substring(uid, 35,2)
) AS uuid_to_mac
from (select uuid() uid) AS alias;
Here's the result:
+--------------------------------------+-------------------+
| uid | uuid_to_mac |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------+
| 78e5e7c0-f2f5-11e3-bcfb-5c514fe65f28 | 5c:51:4f:e6:5f:28 |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)
I checked on Ubuntu with ifconfig and found that
this actually works. What about UUID_SHORT()?The UUID_SHORT()
function is implemented thus:
(server_id & 255) + (server_startup_time_in_seconds + incremented_variable++;
This indicates we could try and apply right bitshifting to extract server id and start time.
Since the server_id can be larger (much
larger) than 255, we cannot reliably extract it. However, you can
give it a try; assuming there are many mysql replication clusters
with less than 255 nodes, and assuming admins will often use a
simple incrementing number scheme for the server id. you might
give it a try.
The start time is also easy to extract with bitshift. Feel free to post queries for that in the comments.
ConclusionsI do not pretend to present any novel insights here, this is just a summary of well-known principles. The most important take-away is that you should strive to not expose system implementation details. Surrogate key values are implementation details so should never have been exposed in the first place. If you cannot meet that requirement (or you need to compromise because of some other requirement) then you, as system or application designer should be aware of the leakiness of your keys. In order to achieve that awareness, you must have insight at the implementation-level of how the keys are generated. Then you should be able to explain, in simple human language, to other engineers, product managers and users, which bits of information are leaking, and what would be the worst possible scenario of abuse of that information. Without that analysis you just cannot decide to expose the keys and hope for the best.