The idea being to expose uuid instead of the natural index.

It’s been downgraded as people use uuids more.

That said, security through obscurity is an effective layer, particularly for slowing an attack.

Slowing lateral movement is valuable.

Sorry I'm a bit confused.

I'm in agreement that a natural key shouldn't be used as the primary key for a record.

I was responding to a comment about having a hidden "database ID" (which I interpreted as being a serial key?) and a public "Uuid", and questioning the utility of that hidden database ID versus having a public UUIDv7 as the sole primary key, followed by questioning whether the utility of obscuring that primary UUIDv7 is worth the complexity of having to manage multiple artificial keys.

I agree that security through obscurity is a valuable layer in a multi-layered security position.

I guess I just don't think obscuring a Uuid primary key is worth the added complexity in most systems.

I see it like adding a second front door to your house with a separate set of keys. Sure it'd be more secure, but it's an added pain and doesn't help if you don't have a sturdy doorframe, or smash-resistant windows.

UUID is PUBLIC id, use it to look up the bigint numerical id, when necessary.

one should not divulge scale, placement in numerical sequence, etc wtr to integer id, hence ouvlic UUID, which is basically unguessable token

Why have a bigint numerical ID at all?

fast lookup for internal usage. it's significantly faster than a UUID on every DBMS i have ever seen

That's a good reason! I think with UUIDv7, because it's sequential it's indexes are faster than UUIDv4. Still larger than bigints though. I'd like to do a benchmark at some point