Is there something wrong with using base62 UUID (Alphanumeric)?

Question

The standard UUIDs are long and you cannot select everything by double-clicking.

eg. 123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426655440000

I like shorter identifiers.

I like being able to double-click an identifier to select it.

My question is: are there any problems with encoding a standard identifier into an alphanumeric string of length 22 (ish) length of base62?

eg. 71jbvv7LfRKYp19gtRLtkn

EDIT: context added
Our needs are for general data storage in NoSQL storage services such as DynamoDB. Collision should not occur, but I understand that the risk of collision with UUID is negligible. The standard UUIDs will satisfy our needs, so I ask if there is any difference or additional risk or unanticipated encoding problems in base62 that does not exist with standard UUIDs?

Thank.

Answer 1

Base62 is not standard as base-64, but then base-64 will have two additional characters that may not allow double-clicking the entire object.

(-)? , , .
:
123e4567e89b12d3a456426655440000

Update:
base-64: [a-zA-Z0-9/+] [a-zA-Z0-9_-]. , .
, , base-62 , . base-62: http://blog.birdhouse.org/2010/10/24/base62-urls-django/

Answer 2

Url62, . UUID Base62.

Java, FriendlyId: https://github.com/Devskiller/friendly-id

: https://medium.com/@huntie/representing-a-uuid-as-a-base-62-hash-id-for-short-pretty-urls-c30e66bf35f9