Re: [IndexedDB] request feedback on IDBKeyRange.inList([]) enhancement

Hi Ben - your comment is considered a "Last Call comment" and it was 
included in the LC's comment tracking document [1].

In [2], Joshua proposed this comment be addressed/resolved as a feature 
request and as such, it was added to the IDB feature request list [3].

For the purposes of tracking your comment, please indicate if this 
resolution is acceptable or not.

-Thanks, ArtB

[1] 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/default/Comments-16-May-2013-LCWD.html>
[2] 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0817.html>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/IndexedDatabaseFeatures>


On 5/17/13 5:37 PM, ext Ben Kelly wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Recently I've been working on a mobile application that makes heavy use of IndexedDB.  In particular, there are times when this app must query a potentially large, non-consecutive list of keys.  Currently (to my knowledge) the IndexedDB API requires that this be done via separate get() calls.  Due to some performance issues I investigated enhancing the IndexedDB API to allow the list of keys to be queried in a single request.  The resulting changes seem to show significant performance improvement on the mozilla mobile platform.
>
> I would like to get your feedback and input on this API change.
>
> The enhancement essentially adds an inList() function to IDBKeyRange.  Similar to the other factory methods on IDBKeyRange, this returns an object which can be used to query a matching set of keys.  The inList() function takes an array of keys to match against.  In practice it would look like the following:
>
>    var keyRange = IDBKeyRange.inList(['key-1', 'key-2', 'key-3']);
>    var request = index.openCursor(keyRange);
>
> Duplicate keys in the list are ignored.  The order of the results would be controlled by the normal cursor ordering mechanisms.
>
> I've written a rough proof-of-concept for the mozilla platform here:
>
>    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=872741
>
> I realize there has been some discussion of this topic in the past.  In particular, Ben Turner referred me to:
>
>    https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16595
>    https://docs.google.com/a/mozilla.com/document/d/1vvC5tFZCZ9T8Cwd2DteUvw5WlU4YJa2NajdkHn6fu-I/edit
>
>  From these links it sounds like there has been a lack of interest, but no strong objection.  Since there appears to be some legitimate benefit from the API enhancement I thought I would send it out to the list for feedback.  I have to admit I'm new to the standardization process, though.  I apologize for the noise if this is essentially a non-starter.
>
> Any feedback is greatly appreciated.  Thank you!
>
> Ben Kelly
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 18:22:12 UTC