W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:58:14 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=KDuadRHoor9WFAs15nFzrkwhbaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>
Cc: Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Monday, April 4, 2011, Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com> wrote:
> On 04 Apr 2011, at 7:28 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
>
>> the biggest bottleneck here in the current implementation would be the transaction overhead on a database this size, which is because of performance problems in sqlite which is underlying the implementation. sqlite can't fix this, it's currently the problem. the object serialization is not a huge performance issue, performance issues in databases are almost always do to IO or transaction locks.
>
>
> You do not have me convinced. I have tried these things (and was once an avid CouchDB user), and one of the first things I learnt was that object deserialization/serialization incurs a massive performance penalty. Just measure the time it takes to JSON.parse/JSON.stringify 50,000 objects on an iPad and then implement an indexing scheme that avoids this overhead and compare the performance times.
>
>> you should most definitely be able build sqlite on top of IDB, there would be a performance penalty of course, which we can address, but you should be able to do it. if you can't then we need to extend the specification.
>
> Trust me on this Mikeal, you cannot build SQLite on top of IDB, the primitives are simply not there. I have been asking for the specification to be extended (namely with regards to schema-less index operation, set operations on indices, and opaque objects) and one or two of the contributors have expressed interest but Mozilla do not appear to be enthralled.

I've asked time and again for concrete proposals. I really don't think
we are going to get any further without that. My impression is that
people disagree on what the API should look like. Some want something
higher level API like SQL, others want lower level with an even
smaller feature set than what we have now.

Personally I think we can solve the requested use cases using additions in v2.

Until we have actual proposals on the table I don't see making any
major rewrites of the API.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 20:58:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:44 GMT