Why does aspnet_users use guid for id rather than incrementing int? bonus points for help on extending user fields

Why does aspnet_users use guid for id rather than incrementing int?

Also is there any reason no to use this in other tables as the primary key? It feels a bit odd as I know most apps I've worked with in the past just use the normal int system.

I'm also about to start using this id to match against an extended details table for extra user prefs etc. I 开发者_StackOverflow中文版was also considering using a link table with a guid and an int in it, but decided that as I don't think I actually need to have user id as a public int.

Although I would like to have the int (feels easier to do a user lookup etc stackoverflow.com/users/12345/user-name ) , as I am just going to have the username, I don't think I need to carry this item around, and incure the extra complexity of lookups when I need to find a users int.

Thanks for any help with any of this.

It ensures uniqueness across disconnected systems. Any data store which may need to interface with another previously unconnected datastore can potentially encounter collisions - e.g. they both used int to identify users, now we have to go through a complex resolution process to choose new IDs for the conflicting ones and update all references accordingly.

The downside to using a standard uniqueidentifier in SQL (with newid()) as the primary key is that GUIDs are not sequential, so as new rows are created they are inserted at some arbitrary position in the physical database page, instead of appended to the end. This causes severe page fragmentation for systems that have any substantial insert rate. It can be corrected by using newsequentialid() instead. I discussed this in more detail here.

In general, its best practice to either use newsequentialid() for your GUID primary key, or just don't use GUIDs for the primary key. You can always have a secondary indexed column that stores a GUID, which you can use to keep your references unique.

GUIDs as a primary key are quite popular with certain groups of programmers who don't really (don't want to or don't know to) care about their underlying database.

GUIDs are cool because they're (almost) guaranteed to be unique, and you can create them "ahead of time" on the client app in .NET code.

Unfortunately, those folks aren't aware of the terrible downsides (horrendous index fragmentation and thus performance loss) of those choices when it comes to SQL Server. Lots of programmer really just don't care one bit..... and then blame SQL Server for being slow as a dog.

If you want to use GUIDs for your primary keys (and they do have some really good uses, as Rex M. pointed out - in replication scenarios mostly), then OK, but make sure to use a INT IDENTITY column as your clustering key in SQL Server to minimize index fragmentation and thus performance losses.

Kimberly Tripp, the "Queen of SQL Server Indexing", has a bunch of really good and insightful articles on the topic - see some of my favorites:

• GUIDs as Primary and/or clustering key
• The clustered index key debate continues....
• The clustered index key debate....again!
• Indexes in SQL Server 2005/2008 Best Practices

and basically anything she ever publishes on her blog is worth reading.