Unique identifier (guid) as primary key in database design

Question

Our data resides in a SQL Server 2008 database, there will be a lot queries and joinings between tables. We have this argument inside the team, some are arguing use of integ

Answer 1

A 128-bit GUID (uniqueidentifier) key is of course 4x larger than a 32-bit int key. However, there are a few key advantages:

• No "IDENTITY INSERT" issue when merging content
• If you use a COMB value instead of NEWSEQUENTIALID(), you get a "free" INSERT timestamp. You can even SELECT from the primary key based on a date/time range if you want with a few fancy CAST() calls.
• They are globally unique, which turns out to be pretty handy now and then.
• Since there's no need to track high-water marks, your BL layer can assign the value rather than SQL Server, thus eliminating the step of SELECT scope_identity() to get the primary key after an insert.
• If it's even remotely possible that you could have more than 2 billion records, you'll need to use bigint (64 bits) instead of int. Once you do that, uniqueidentifier is only twice as big as a bigint.
• Using GUIDs makes it safer to expose keys in URLs, etc. without exposing yourself to "guess-the-ID" attacks.
• Between how SQL Server loads pages from disk and how processors are now mostly 64-bit, just because a number is 128 bits instead of 32 doesn't mean it takes 4x longer to compare. The last test I saw showed that GUIDs are nearly as fast.
• Index size depends on how many columns are included. Even though the GUIDs themselves are larger, the extra 8 or 12 bytes may be insignificant compared to the other columns in the index.

In the end, squeezing out some small performance advantage by using integers may not be worth losing the advantages of a GUID. Test it empirically and decide for yourself.

Personally, I still use both, depending on the situation, but the deciding factor has never really come down to performance in my case.