You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by Ofbiz 开发 <ph...@gmail.com> on 2013/04/30 12:38:25 UTC
Use UUID for ProductID
Hi everyone,
I am considering using Java UUID for the ProductID (
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/UUID.html ), but that
requires at least varchar (32), and the current ProductID field in database
is only varchar(20), how hard is it to change to varchar(32) please? Is
there any plan in Ofbiz trunk to change this to varchar(32) please? It
seems better than using sequence.
Thanks.
Kind Regards
Fong
Re: Use UUID for ProductID
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
What's wrong with the existing sequence generator? Why do you think UUID
is better?
-Adrian
On 4/30/2013 11:38 AM, Ofbiz 开发 wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am considering using Java UUID for the ProductID (
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/UUID.html ), but that
> requires at least varchar (32), and the current ProductID field in database
> is only varchar(20), how hard is it to change to varchar(32) please? Is
> there any plan in Ofbiz trunk to change this to varchar(32) please? It
> seems better than using sequence.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Fong
>
Re: Use UUID for ProductID
Posted by Mike <mz...@gmail.com>.
Hey Paul. I don't really think it matters too much any more with modern
database systems with gigabytes of RAM. Most DB systems the size of ofbiz
run completely in RAM, and although storing an integer as a primary key is
still optimal, even using a UUID as a primary key would still be lighting
fast, as long as the index is completely in RAM.
The above was true in 1999, when a 2U server cost $4000 and came with 512MB
of RAM.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Paul Foxworthy <pa...@cohsoft.com.au> wrote:
> I would also urge caution in changing keys.
>
> There is one advantage in using UUIDs. If you have distributed or
> replicated
> data, you can generate new rows in different locations and you can be sure
> there will be no collisions when you synchronize later on.
>
> There are disadvantages to UUIDs too. Compactness matters in keys. An
> excessive key size means database index entries are big, and therefore less
> will fit in pages and there will be more disk I/O to search the index.
>
> UUIDs are random, so in tree indexes pages will be split at random, and
> there will be considerable fragmentation. In contrast, if the key is
> continually increasing, all the action is in the bottom right hand corner
> of
> a tree index, and (assuming the keys are stable and a low number of
> deletes)
> there won't be many random splits elsewhere.
>
> So UUIDs really only make sense if you have distributed or replicated data,
> and that's not typical for OFBiz.
>
> If you really wanted to use UUIDs, it might be possible to store them in
> binary form, where they would occupy 16 bytes (128 bits).
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul Foxworthy
>
>
> Mike Z wrote
> > This is certainly one way to do it.
> >
> > In my case, I prefer to use "SUPPLIER_ID-SUPPLIER_PN" for the PRODUCT_ID,
> > and use the same format for electronictext, contentid, contentassoc, etc.
> > It allows me to logically organize the product_id, and also allows me to
> > blow away a product if I need to. Example:
> >
> > product_id | product_type_id | primary_product_category_id
> > 10000-798936838421 | FINISHED_GOOD | 10003 |
> >
> > 10000-798936838421Dru | ELECTRONIC_TEXT |
> > | | | |
> > | ru |
> >
> > The above supplier "10000", and PN (UPC) is the PRODUCT_ID, and the above
> > ELECTRONIC_TEXT entry is the russian description (Dru) of the item.
> >
> > A sample similar to the above was in DemoData, so I went with it.
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Adrian Crum <
>
> > adrian.crum@
>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 4/30/2013 4:52 PM, Mike wrote:
> >>
> >>> Compare the following three files:
> >>>
> >>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypemysql.xml
> >>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostgres.xml
> >>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostnew.xml
> >>>
> >>> I bet you are using mysql, or maybe even postgres, which has very
> >>> LIMITED
> >>> key value lengths. In the real world, you never know what key length
> >>> you
> >>> may need in the future, so why limit yourself? Now take a look at
> >>> "postnew", which uses a generic "text" type for almost all the fields.
> >>> It
> >>> allows ANY key length, which allows the flexibility to create logical
> >>> relations, even for part numbers that may be 60 characters or so.
> >>>
> >>> I learned this the hard way, when I came across long part numbers, and
> >>> struggled to figure out a way to logically store them. Back then I was
> >>> using mysql.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Part numbers are a GOOD IDENTIFICATION. So, you wouldn't put the part
> >> number in a 20 character ID field. Instead, you would use the standard
> ID
> >> sequence generator for the PRODUCT, then link the PRODUCT to a GOOD
> >> IDENTIFICATION.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> --
> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
> http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
>
> Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
> http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Use-UUID-for-ProductID-tp4640950p4640971.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: Use UUID for ProductID
Posted by Paul Foxworthy <pa...@cohsoft.com.au>.
I would also urge caution in changing keys.
There is one advantage in using UUIDs. If you have distributed or replicated
data, you can generate new rows in different locations and you can be sure
there will be no collisions when you synchronize later on.
There are disadvantages to UUIDs too. Compactness matters in keys. An
excessive key size means database index entries are big, and therefore less
will fit in pages and there will be more disk I/O to search the index.
UUIDs are random, so in tree indexes pages will be split at random, and
there will be considerable fragmentation. In contrast, if the key is
continually increasing, all the action is in the bottom right hand corner of
a tree index, and (assuming the keys are stable and a low number of deletes)
there won't be many random splits elsewhere.
So UUIDs really only make sense if you have distributed or replicated data,
and that's not typical for OFBiz.
If you really wanted to use UUIDs, it might be possible to store them in
binary form, where they would occupy 16 bytes (128 bits).
Cheers
Paul Foxworthy
Mike Z wrote
> This is certainly one way to do it.
>
> In my case, I prefer to use "SUPPLIER_ID-SUPPLIER_PN" for the PRODUCT_ID,
> and use the same format for electronictext, contentid, contentassoc, etc.
> It allows me to logically organize the product_id, and also allows me to
> blow away a product if I need to. Example:
>
> product_id | product_type_id | primary_product_category_id
> 10000-798936838421 | FINISHED_GOOD | 10003 |
>
> 10000-798936838421Dru | ELECTRONIC_TEXT |
> | | | |
> | ru |
>
> The above supplier "10000", and PN (UPC) is the PRODUCT_ID, and the above
> ELECTRONIC_TEXT entry is the russian description (Dru) of the item.
>
> A sample similar to the above was in DemoData, so I went with it.
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Adrian Crum <
> adrian.crum@
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/30/2013 4:52 PM, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Compare the following three files:
>>>
>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypemysql.xml
>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostgres.xml
>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostnew.xml
>>>
>>> I bet you are using mysql, or maybe even postgres, which has very
>>> LIMITED
>>> key value lengths. In the real world, you never know what key length
>>> you
>>> may need in the future, so why limit yourself? Now take a look at
>>> "postnew", which uses a generic "text" type for almost all the fields.
>>> It
>>> allows ANY key length, which allows the flexibility to create logical
>>> relations, even for part numbers that may be 60 characters or so.
>>>
>>> I learned this the hard way, when I came across long part numbers, and
>>> struggled to figure out a way to logically store them. Back then I was
>>> using mysql.
>>>
>>
>> Part numbers are a GOOD IDENTIFICATION. So, you wouldn't put the part
>> number in a 20 character ID field. Instead, you would use the standard ID
>> sequence generator for the PRODUCT, then link the PRODUCT to a GOOD
>> IDENTIFICATION.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>>
-----
--
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
--
View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Use-UUID-for-ProductID-tp4640950p4640971.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Use UUID for ProductID
Posted by Mike <mz...@gmail.com>.
This is certainly one way to do it.
In my case, I prefer to use "SUPPLIER_ID-SUPPLIER_PN" for the PRODUCT_ID,
and use the same format for electronictext, contentid, contentassoc, etc.
It allows me to logically organize the product_id, and also allows me to
blow away a product if I need to. Example:
product_id | product_type_id | primary_product_category_id
10000-798936838421 | FINISHED_GOOD | 10003 |
10000-798936838421Dru | ELECTRONIC_TEXT |
| | | |
| ru |
The above supplier "10000", and PN (UPC) is the PRODUCT_ID, and the above
ELECTRONIC_TEXT entry is the russian description (Dru) of the item.
A sample similar to the above was in DemoData, so I went with it.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/30/2013 4:52 PM, Mike wrote:
>
>> Compare the following three files:
>>
>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypemysql.xml
>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostgres.xml
>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostnew.xml
>>
>> I bet you are using mysql, or maybe even postgres, which has very LIMITED
>> key value lengths. In the real world, you never know what key length you
>> may need in the future, so why limit yourself? Now take a look at
>> "postnew", which uses a generic "text" type for almost all the fields. It
>> allows ANY key length, which allows the flexibility to create logical
>> relations, even for part numbers that may be 60 characters or so.
>>
>> I learned this the hard way, when I came across long part numbers, and
>> struggled to figure out a way to logically store them. Back then I was
>> using mysql.
>>
>
> Part numbers are a GOOD IDENTIFICATION. So, you wouldn't put the part
> number in a 20 character ID field. Instead, you would use the standard ID
> sequence generator for the PRODUCT, then link the PRODUCT to a GOOD
> IDENTIFICATION.
>
> -Adrian
>
>
Re: Use UUID for ProductID
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
I would recommend leaving the data model as-is. A 20 character ID
accommodates thousands of trillions of products - certainly sufficient
for most businesses.
-Adrian
On 5/2/2013 4:33 AM, Ofbiz 开发 wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> So at the moment ProductID is type "id-ne", is it possible to change it to
> type "id-long-ne" please? Will it affect anything else or other bad side
> effect please?
>
> And do you think using the fieldtypepostnew.xml is not a good idea, even
> though it's a new system? Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Fong
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Adrian Crum <
> adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2013 4:52 PM, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Compare the following three files:
>>>
>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypemysql.xml
>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostgres.xml
>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostnew.xml
>>>
>>> I bet you are using mysql, or maybe even postgres, which has very LIMITED
>>> key value lengths. In the real world, you never know what key length you
>>> may need in the future, so why limit yourself? Now take a look at
>>> "postnew", which uses a generic "text" type for almost all the fields. It
>>> allows ANY key length, which allows the flexibility to create logical
>>> relations, even for part numbers that may be 60 characters or so.
>>>
>>> I learned this the hard way, when I came across long part numbers, and
>>> struggled to figure out a way to logically store them. Back then I was
>>> using mysql.
>>>
>> Part numbers are a GOOD IDENTIFICATION. So, you wouldn't put the part
>> number in a 20 character ID field. Instead, you would use the standard ID
>> sequence generator for the PRODUCT, then link the PRODUCT to a GOOD
>> IDENTIFICATION.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>>
Re: Use UUID for ProductID
Posted by Ofbiz 开发 <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hi Adrian,
So at the moment ProductID is type "id-ne", is it possible to change it to
type "id-long-ne" please? Will it affect anything else or other bad side
effect please?
And do you think using the fieldtypepostnew.xml is not a good idea, even
though it's a new system? Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.
Kind Regards
Fong
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/30/2013 4:52 PM, Mike wrote:
>
>> Compare the following three files:
>>
>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypemysql.xml
>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostgres.xml
>> framework/entity/fieldtype/**fieldtypepostnew.xml
>>
>> I bet you are using mysql, or maybe even postgres, which has very LIMITED
>> key value lengths. In the real world, you never know what key length you
>> may need in the future, so why limit yourself? Now take a look at
>> "postnew", which uses a generic "text" type for almost all the fields. It
>> allows ANY key length, which allows the flexibility to create logical
>> relations, even for part numbers that may be 60 characters or so.
>>
>> I learned this the hard way, when I came across long part numbers, and
>> struggled to figure out a way to logically store them. Back then I was
>> using mysql.
>>
>
> Part numbers are a GOOD IDENTIFICATION. So, you wouldn't put the part
> number in a 20 character ID field. Instead, you would use the standard ID
> sequence generator for the PRODUCT, then link the PRODUCT to a GOOD
> IDENTIFICATION.
>
> -Adrian
>
>
Re: Use UUID for ProductID
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
On 4/30/2013 4:52 PM, Mike wrote:
> Compare the following three files:
>
> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml
> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypepostgres.xml
> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypepostnew.xml
>
> I bet you are using mysql, or maybe even postgres, which has very LIMITED
> key value lengths. In the real world, you never know what key length you
> may need in the future, so why limit yourself? Now take a look at
> "postnew", which uses a generic "text" type for almost all the fields. It
> allows ANY key length, which allows the flexibility to create logical
> relations, even for part numbers that may be 60 characters or so.
>
> I learned this the hard way, when I came across long part numbers, and
> struggled to figure out a way to logically store them. Back then I was
> using mysql.
Part numbers are a GOOD IDENTIFICATION. So, you wouldn't put the part
number in a 20 character ID field. Instead, you would use the standard
ID sequence generator for the PRODUCT, then link the PRODUCT to a GOOD
IDENTIFICATION.
-Adrian
Re: Use UUID for ProductID
Posted by Ofbiz 开发 <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hi Mike,
Thank you very much for your detailed reply. I hasn't came across TEXT data
type before, I just Google it and seems not a ISO standard data type, only
specific to postgreSQL, but it does have the advantage you mentioned. And
yes we are building a new system and will be using PostgreSQL.
So is this fieldtypepostnew.xml a recommended one to use for all new OFBIZ
system please? Will it have any bad side effect since it's not a standard
data type please? E.g. in future upgrade etc... Thank you very much!
Kind Regards
Fong
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Mike <mz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Compare the following three files:
>
> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml
> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypepostgres.xml
> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypepostnew.xml
>
> I bet you are using mysql, or maybe even postgres, which has very LIMITED
> key value lengths. In the real world, you never know what key length you
> may need in the future, so why limit yourself? Now take a look at
> "postnew", which uses a generic "text" type for almost all the fields. It
> allows ANY key length, which allows the flexibility to create logical
> relations, even for part numbers that may be 60 characters or so.
>
> I learned this the hard way, when I came across long part numbers, and
> struggled to figure out a way to logically store them. Back then I was
> using mysql. I made the hard conversion to postgres, using
> "postnew", defined in:
>
> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml:
> <datasource name="localpostnew"
> field-type-name="postnew"
>
> And never had a problem since. You can then use UUID for anything.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Ofbiz 开发 <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I am considering using Java UUID for the ProductID (
> > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/UUID.html ), but that
> > requires at least varchar (32), and the current ProductID field in
> database
> > is only varchar(20), how hard is it to change to varchar(32) please? Is
> > there any plan in Ofbiz trunk to change this to varchar(32) please? It
> > seems better than using sequence.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Kind Regards
> >
> > Fong
> >
>
Re: Use UUID for ProductID
Posted by Mike <mz...@gmail.com>.
Compare the following three files:
framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml
framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypepostgres.xml
framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypepostnew.xml
I bet you are using mysql, or maybe even postgres, which has very LIMITED
key value lengths. In the real world, you never know what key length you
may need in the future, so why limit yourself? Now take a look at
"postnew", which uses a generic "text" type for almost all the fields. It
allows ANY key length, which allows the flexibility to create logical
relations, even for part numbers that may be 60 characters or so.
I learned this the hard way, when I came across long part numbers, and
struggled to figure out a way to logically store them. Back then I was
using mysql. I made the hard conversion to postgres, using
"postnew", defined in:
framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml:
<datasource name="localpostnew"
field-type-name="postnew"
And never had a problem since. You can then use UUID for anything.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Ofbiz 开发 <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am considering using Java UUID for the ProductID (
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/UUID.html ), but that
> requires at least varchar (32), and the current ProductID field in database
> is only varchar(20), how hard is it to change to varchar(32) please? Is
> there any plan in Ofbiz trunk to change this to varchar(32) please? It
> seems better than using sequence.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Fong
>