W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: IndexedDB: Binary Keys

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:03:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9SqXC3Fb897KTsV=h4D2ZQ28GFKECMADAW+RDZrxo53A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com> wrote:
> IndexedDB supports binary values as per the structured clone algorithm
> as implemented in Chrome and Firefox.
> IndexedDB needs to support binary keys (ArrayBuffer, TypedArrays).
> Many popular KV stores accept binary keys (BDB, Tokyo, LevelDB). The
> Chrome implementation of IDB is already serializing keys to binary.
> JS is moving more and more towards binary data across the board
> (WebSockets, TypedArrays, FileSystemAPI). IDB is not quite there if it
> does not support binary keys.
> Binary keys are more efficient than Base 64 encoded keys, e.g. a 128
> bit key in base 256 is 16 bytes, but 22 bytes in base 64.
> Am working on a production system storing 3 million keys in IndexedDB.
> In about 6 months it will be storing 60 million keys in IndexedDB.
> Without support for binary keys, that's 330mb wasted storage
> (60,000,000 * (22 - 16)) not to mention the wasted CPU overhead spent
> Base64 encoding and decoding keys.

I agree that we should introduce this, but I think it's too late to
add for version one (which is about to go to last call any day now).

I'd be happy to add it to version 2 though. However the current
situation regarding binary data in Javascript is still pretty chaotic.
See for example the resent change to switch a bunch of APIs over from
ArrayBuffer to ArrayBufferViews.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 00:04:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:40 UTC