Re: [w3c/IndexedDB] Disallow starting readwrite transactions while readonly transactions are running? (#253)

> so at least some reads will be blocked on some writes.

That's fine. Completely different from blocking _all_ reads or writes.

> In other words, given the available embedded database systems, I'd strongly object to making snapshots (or any other form of concurrent reads and writes) required in IndexedDB.

There aren't many available embedded database systems in browsers with persistent storage. Emscripten has the IDBFS file system which (full-circle) uses IndexedDB, and WORKERFS, which is only available in workers. I'm gonna be looking into this though. Particularly interested in the wasm+leveldb option that @inexorabletash mentioned elsewhere.

> You'll enjoy better performance on all browser engines if you break up your writes into smaller batches. This will also give your read transactions an opportunity to get scheduled.

Yeah, batching writes is how I managed to get 10+ million writes working in a now-discontinued Chrome extension, where the background page was silently synchronizing data with a backend while other contexts were reading from the same store. Thanks to snapshots, I did not have to worry about the order of transactions or what other contexts were doing in the mean time. I still had to work around the limited lifetime of transactions though, having to make a choice between snapshot guarantees and proper backpressure.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/issues/253#issuecomment-455693370