|
| 1 | +# You May Have Trouble with GUIDs: Generating Sequential GUIDs in .NET |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | + |
| 4 | +If you’ve ever shoved a bunch of `Guid.NewGuid()` values into a SQL Server table with a clustered index on the PK, you’ve probably felt the pain: **Index fragmentation so bad you could use it as modern art.** Inserts slow down, page splits go wild, and your DBA starts sending you passive-aggressive Slack messages. |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +And yet… we keep doing it. Why? Because GUIDs are _easy_. They’re globally unique, they don’t need a round trip to the DB, and they make distributed systems happy. But here’s the catch: **random GUIDs are absolute chaos for ordered indexes**. |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +## The Problem with Vanilla GUIDs |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +* **Randomness kills order** — clustered indexes thrive on sequential inserts; random GUIDs force constant reordering. |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +* **Performance hit** — every insert can trigger page splits and index reshuffling. |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +* **Storage bloat** — fragmentation means wasted space and slower reads. |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +Sure, you could switch to int or long identity columns, but then you lose the distributed generation magic and security benefits (predictable IDs are guessable). |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +## Sequential GUIDs to the Rescue |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +Sequential GUIDs keep the uniqueness but add a predictable ordering component, usually by embedding a timestamp in part of the GUID. This means: |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +* Inserts happen at the “end” of the index, not all over the place. |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +* Fragmentation drops dramatically. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +* You still get globally unique IDs without DB trips. |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +Think of it as **GUIDs with manners**. |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +## ABP Framework’s Secret Sauce |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +Here’s where ABP Framework flexes: it **uses sequential GUIDs by default** for entity IDs. No ceremony, no “remember to call this helper method”, it’s baked in. |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +Under the hood: |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +* ABP ships with IGuidGenerator (default: SequentialGuidGenerator). |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +* It picks the right sequential strategy for your DB provider: |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | + * **SequentialAtEnd** → SQL Server |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | + * **SequentialAsString** → MySQL/PostgreSQL |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | + * **SequentialAsBinary** → Oracle |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +* EF Core integration packages auto-configure this, so you rarely need to touch it. |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +Example in ABP: |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +```csharp |
| 52 | +public class MyProductService : ITransientDependency |
| 53 | +{ |
| 54 | + private readonly IRepository<Product, Guid> _productRepository; |
| 55 | + private readonly IGuidGenerator _guidGenerator; |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | + public MyProductService( |
| 59 | + IRepository<Product, Guid> productRepository, |
| 60 | + IGuidGenerator guidGenerator) |
| 61 | + { |
| 62 | + _productRepository = productRepository; |
| 63 | + _guidGenerator = guidGenerator; |
| 64 | + } |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | + public async Task CreateAsync(string productName) |
| 68 | + { |
| 69 | + var product = new Product(_guidGenerator.Create(), productName); |
| 70 | + await _productRepository.InsertAsync(product); |
| 71 | + } |
| 72 | +} |
| 73 | +``` |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | +No `Guid.NewGuid()` here, `_guidGenerator.Create()` gives you a sequential GUID every time. |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +## Benefits of Sequential GUIDs |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +Let’s say you’re inserting 1M rows into a table with a clustered primary key: |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +* **Random GUIDs** → fragmentation ~99%, insert throughput tanks. |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +* **Sequential GUIDs** → fragmentation stays low, inserts fly. |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +In high-volume systems, this difference is **not** academic, it’s the difference between smooth scaling and spending weekends rebuilding indexes. |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +## When to Use Sequential GUIDs |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +* **Distributed systems** that still want DB-friendly inserts. |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +* **High-write workloads** with clustered indexes on GUID PKs. |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +* **Multi-tenant apps** where IDs need to be unique across tenants. |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +## When Random GUIDs Still Make Sense |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +* Security through obscurity, if you don’t want IDs to hint at creation order. |
| 98 | + |
| 99 | +* Non-indexed identifiers, fragmentation isn’t a concern. |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +## The Final Take |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +ABP’s default sequential GUID generation is one of those “**small but huge**” features. It’s the kind of thing you don’t notice until you benchmark, and then you wonder why you ever lived without it. |
| 104 | + |
| 105 | +## Links |
| 106 | +You may want to check the following references to learn more about sequential GUIDs: |
| 107 | + |
| 108 | +- [ABP Framework Documentation: Sequential GUIDs](https://docs.abp.io/en/abp/latest/Guid-Generation) |
0 commit comments