W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [Bug 11351] New: [IndexedDB] Should we have a maximum key size (or something like that)?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:42:21 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinJdDSzx2-2qdAbcCqFUAB8uJjKOYPdToK5kK+4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> Any more thoughts on this?

I don't feel strongly one way or another. Implementation wise I don't
really understand why implementations couldn't use keys of unlimited
size. I wouldn't imagine implementations would want to use fixed-size
allocations for every key anyway, right (which would be a strong
reason to keep maximum size down).

Pablo, do you know why the back ends you were looking at had such
relatively low limits?

At the same time, I suspect that very few people would run into
problems if we set the limit at a K or two of bytes.

It's in general a good idea to limit strings around somewhere 2^30
bytes as to avoid overflow problems, but such limits are large enough
that I'm not even convinced they need to be specified.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 10 December 2010 21:43:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT