Cetin,
No you you didn't say GUIDs perform poor/wors compared to (big)int. Re-reading my reply to you I was the one who screwed up <s>. I was just happy to see that you think it is a myth that GUIDs perform worse than (big)int. I hope that is what you meant.
Thank you very much for the link. I have been searching and searching for such article. If you have more articles like that I would appreciate if you posted them.

I like the use of GUIDs as PK in my tables (especially for the type of apps I write now). Thanks for your thoughts on bandwidth.

Einar

>
>Did I really say GUIDs perform poor/worse? If I did I didn't mean it:) There are interesting tests by SQL gurus (and how I know they're gurus - their code sounded to be much better than mine:) on internet. I couldn't find my favorite but found this one for example:
>
>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/zn_guid_performance.asp
>
>It starts with almost the same statements who against GUIDs say:) But read conclusion part carefully and check getdate() results (getdate() is a technique to scrub GUID to be sequential - once upon a time there were no NewSequentialID() in SQL server) If you insert 4million rows everyday than that makes a difference - 400secs more time so right, it's not a myth, GUIDs are slow:)
>PS: Bandwith? What bandwidth? You can fit thousands of rows to your bandwidth and think about extra 8*thousands or 12*thousands bytes?
>Cetin