.NET: Avoid Using Guid.CreateVersion7

1 hour ago 2

TL;DR: Guid.CreateVersion7 in .NET 9+ claims RFC 9562 compliance but violates its big-endian requirement for binary storage. This causes the same database index fragmentation that v7 UUIDs were designed to prevent. Testing with 100K PostgreSQL inserts shows rampant fragmentation (35% larger indexes) versus properly-implemented sequential GUIDs.

Guid.CreateVersion7 method was introduced in .NET 9 and is now included for the first time in a long-term-supported .NET 10. Microsoft docs for Guid.CreateVersion7 state “Creates a new Guid according to RFC 9562, following the Version 7 format.” We will see about that.

RFC 9562 defines a UUID as a 128-bit/16-byte long structure (which System.Guid is, so far so good). RFC 9562 requires UUIDv7 versions to store a 48-bit/6-byte big-endian Unix timestamp in milliseconds in the most significant 48 bits. Guid.CreateVersion7 does not do that, and hence violates its RFC 9562 claims.

RFC 9562 UUIDv7 Expected Byte Order: ┌─────────────────┬──────────────────────┐ │ MSB first: │ │ │ Timestamp (6) │ Mostly Random (10) │ └─────────────────┴──────────────────────┘

Let’s test it out:

// helper structures Span<byte> bytes8 = stackalloc byte[8]; Span<byte> bytes16 = stackalloc byte[16]; var ts = DateTimeOffset.UtcNow; // get UTC timestamp long ts_ms = ts.ToUnixTimeMilliseconds(); // get Unix milliseconds ts_ms.Dump(); // print out ts_ms - for example: 1762550326422 // convert ts_ms to 8 bytes Unsafe.WriteUnaligned(ref bytes8[0], ts_ms); // print the hex bytes of ts_ms, for example: 96-A4-2F-60-9A-01-00-00 BitConverter.ToString(bytes8.ToArray()).Dump(); // We now expect that Guid.CreateVersion7() will start with the above 6 bytes in reverse order: // specifically: 01-9A-60-2F-A4-96 followed by 10 more bytes var uuid_v7 = Guid.CreateVersion7(ts); // creating v7 version from previously generated timestamp BitConverter.ToString(uuid_v7.ToByteArray()).Dump(); // print the .ToByteArray() conversion of uuid_v7 // Print out the 16 in-memory uuid_v7 bytes directly, without any helper conversions: Unsafe.WriteUnaligned(ref bytes16[0], uuid_v7); BitConverter.ToString(bytes16.ToArray()).Dump(); // Output (2 lines): // 2F-60-9A-01-96-A4-2C-7E-8B-BF-68-FB-69-1C-A8-03 // 2F-60-9A-01-96-A4-2C-7E-8B-BF-68-FB-69-1C-A8-03 // 1. We see that both in-memory and .ToByteArray() bytes are identical. // 2. We see that the byte order is *NOT* what we expected above, // and does not match RFC 9562 v7-required byte order. // Expected big-endian: 01-9A-60-2F-A4-96-... // Actual in-memory: 2F-60-9A-01-96-A4-... // ❌ First 6 bytes are NOT in big-endian order uuid_v7.ToString().Dump(); // 019a602f-a496-7e2c-8bbf-68fb691ca803 // The string representation of uuid_v7 does match the expected left-to-right byte order.

Note that RFC 9562 is first and foremost a byte-order specification. The .NET implementation of Guid.CreateVersion7 does not store the timestamp in big-endian order - neither in-memory nor in the result of .ToByteArray().

The .NET implementation instead makes the v7 string representation of the Guid appear correct by storing the underlying bytes in (v7-incorrect) non-big-endian way. However, this string "correctness" is mostly useless, since storing UUIDs as strings is an anti-pattern (RFC 9562: "where feasible, UUIDs SHOULD be stored within database applications as the underlying 128-bit binary value").

Also note that this problem is unrelated to RFC 9562 Section 6.2 which deals with optional monotonicity in cases of multiple UUIDs generated within the same Unix timestamp.

Who cares? Why this matters

This issue is not just a technicality or a minor documentation omission. The primary purpose of Version 7 UUIDs is to create sequentially ordered IDs that can be used as database keys (e.g., PostgreSQL) to prevent index fragmentation.

Databases sort UUIDs based on their 16-byte order, and the .NET implementation of Guid.CreateVersion7 fails to provide the correct big-endian sequential ordering over the first 6 bytes. As implemented, Guid.CreateVersion7 increments its first byte roughly every minute, wrapping around after ~4.27 hours. This improper behavior leads to the exact database fragmentation that Version 7 UUIDs were designed to prevent.

The only thing worse than a "lack of sequential-GUID support in .NET" is Microsoft-blessed supposedly trustworthy implementation that does not deliver. Let's see this failure in action. Npgsql is a de facto standard OSS .NET client for PostgreSQL, with 3.6k stars on Github. Npgsql v10 added Guid.CreateVersion7 as the implementation of NpgsqlSequentialGuidValueGenerator more than a year ago.

We'll test PostgreSQL 18 by inserting 100_000 UUIDs as primary keys using the following UUID-creation strategies:

uuid = Guid.NewGuid(); which is mostly random, and we expect lots of fragmentation (no surprises).
uuid = Guid.CreateVersion7(); which is supposedly big-endian ordered on 6 first bytes, and should reduce fragmentation.
uuid = instance of NpgsqlSequentialGuidValueGenerator.Next(); which is identical to #2 (just making sure).
uuid = FastGuid.NewPostgreSqlGuid(); from FastGuid, which not only reduces fragmentation, but is also very fast (see benchmarks).

-- PostgreSQL: -- DROP TABLE IF EXISTS public.my_table; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS public.my_table ( id uuid NOT NULL, name text, CONSTRAINT my_table_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id) )

c# code to populate the above table:

async Task Main() { string connectionString = "Host=localhost;Port=5432;Username=postgres;Password=postgres;Database=testdb"; using var connection = new NpgsqlConnection(connectionString); await connection.OpenAsync(); "Connection to PostgreSQL database established successfully!".Dump(); if (true) { const int N_GUIDS = 100_000; var guids = new Guid[N_GUIDS]; var entityFrameworkCore = new Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL.ValueGeneration.NpgsqlSequentialGuidValueGenerator(); for (int i = 0; i < guids.Length; ++i) { //guids[i] = Guid.NewGuid(); //guids[i] = Guid.CreateVersion7(); //guids[i] = SecurityDriven.FastGuid.NewPostgreSqlGuid(); guids[i] = entityFrameworkCore.Next(null); } for (int i = 0; i < guids.Length; ++i) { using var comm = new NpgsqlCommand($"INSERT INTO public.my_table(id, name) VALUES('{guids[i]}',{i});", connection); comm.ExecuteScalar(); } } using var command = new NpgsqlCommand("SELECT * FROM public.my_table ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 100", connection); using var reader = await command.ExecuteReaderAsync(); while (reader.Read()) // Iterate through the results and display table details { // Fetch column values by index or column name Guid id = reader.GetGuid(0); string name = reader.GetString(1); // Display the information (using Dump for LINQPad or Console.WriteLine for other environments) $@"{id,-50} [{name}]".Dump(); } }//main

We'll run the database inserts and then check fragmentation via:

SELECT * FROM pgstattuple('my_table_pkey');

Case-1: using Guid.NewGuid() (no surprises) ↓

After VACUUM FULL my_table;:

Case-2: using Guid.CreateVersion7() ↓

After VACUUM FULL my_table;:

Case-3: using NpgsqlSequentialGuidValueGenerator.Next(); (should be identical to #2) ↓

After VACUUM FULL my_table;:

Case-4: using FastGuid.NewPostgreSqlGuid(); ↓

After VACUUM FULL my_table;:

Understanding the results:

table_len is total physical size (in bytes) of the index file on disk.
tuple_percent is percentage of the index file used by live tuples. This is roughly equivalent to page density.
free_space is the total amount of unused space within the allocated pages.
free_percent is free_space as a percentage (free_space / table_len).

Note that tuple_percent and free_percent do not add up to 100% because ~15% of this index is occupied by internal metadata (page headers, item pointers, padding, etc).

Key observations:

In Cases-1/2/3 the database size (and #pages) was ~35% higher than for Case-4.
In Case-4 the page density was optimal (ie. VACUUM FULL had no effect).
Cases-2/3 (which use Guid.CreateVersion7) were virtually identical to Case-1 (which used a random Guid). Using Guid.CreateVersion7 showed zero improvement over random Guid.NewGuid().

Findings: Cases 1-3 produce identical fragmentation patterns (before and after VACUUM). Guid.CreateVersion7 provides zero benefit over random GUIDs. FastGuid requires no VACUUM as insertions are already optimal.

This issue was already raised and discussed with Microsoft in January 2025. Microsoft's implementation of Guid.CreateVersion7 is intentional and by design. They will not be changing the byte-order behavior or updating the documentation.

Microsoft's Guid.CreateVersion7 (introduced in .NET 9) claims to implement RFC 9562's Version 7 UUID specification, but it violates the core big-endian byte-order requirement, which causes real database performance problems:

35% larger indexes compared to properly-implemented sequential identifiers
20% worse page density
Zero improvement over Guid.NewGuid() for preventing fragmentation

The irony: Version 7 UUIDs were specifically designed to prevent the exact fragmentation that Guid.CreateVersion7 still causes. Millions of developers will be tempted to use it, believe they are solving fragmentation, and actually be making it just as bad as with random identifiers, all while burning CPU to generate a "sequential" ID that isn't.

Step-1: Avoid using Guid.CreateVersion7 for 16-byte database identifiers.
Step-2: Fix your database fragmentation with FastGuid: a lightweight, high-performance library that generates sequential 16-byte identifiers specifically optimized for database use.
- .NewPostgreSqlGuid for PostgreSQL
- .NewSqlServerGuid for SQL Server

Disclosure: I'm the author of FastGuid. This article presents reproducible benchmarks with verifiable results.

Read Entire Article

.NET: Avoid Using Guid.CreateVersion7

Who cares? Why this matters

Case-1: using Guid.NewGuid() (no surprises) ↓

Case-2: using Guid.CreateVersion7() ↓

Case-3: using NpgsqlSequentialGuidValueGenerator.Next(); (should be identical to #2) ↓

Case-4: using FastGuid.NewPostgreSqlGuid(); ↓

Understanding the results:

Related

Denial of Fuzzing: Rust in the Windows Kernel

When Your Husband Spends $300k on DraftKings

The AI Mega Mesh: How to Connect 30 GPU Cloud Providers