W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] IDBCursor.update for cursors returned from IDBIndex.openCursor

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:23:41 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikHAMoudCLJRLfHGEuU+2ObW9q62v8hxYG4MMhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Wait a sec.  What are the use cases for non-object cursors anyway?  They
> > made perfect sense back when we allowed explicit index management, but
> now
> > they kind of seem like a premature optimization or possibly even dead
> > weight.  Maybe we should just remove them altogether?
> They are still useful for joins. Consider an objectStore "employees":
> { id: 1, name: "Sven", employed: "1-1-2010" }
> { id: 2, name: "Bert", employed: "5-1-2009" }
> { id: 3, name: "Adam", employed: "6-6-2008" }
> And objectStore "sales"
> { seller: 1, candyName: "lollipop", quantity: 5, date: "9-15-2010" }
> { seller: 1, candyName: "swedish fish", quantity: 12, date: "9-15-2010" }
> { seller: 2, candyName: "jelly belly", quantity: 3, date: "9-14-2010" }
> { seller: 3, candyName: "heath bar", quantity: 3, date: "9-13-2010" }
> If you want to display the amount of sales per person, sorted by names
> of sales person, you could do this by first creating and index for
> "employees" with keyPath "name". You'd then use IDBIndex.openCursor to
> iterate that index, and for each entry find all entries in the "sales"
> objectStore where "seller" matches the cursors .value.
> So in this case you don't actually need any data from the "employees"
> objectStore, all the data is available in the index. Thus it is
> sufficient, and faster, to use openCursor than openObjectCursor.
> In general, it's a common optimization to stick enough data in an
> index that you don't have to actually look up in the objectStore
> itself. This is slightly less commonly doable since we have relatively
> simple indexes so far. But still doable as the example above shows.
> Once we add support for arrays as keys this will be much more common
> as you can then stick arbitrary data into the index by simply adding
> additional entries to all key arrays. And even more so once we
> (probably in a future version) add support for computed indexes.

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Actually, for that matter, are remove and update needed at all?  I think
> > they may just be more cruft left over from the explicit index days.  As
> far
> > as I can tell, any .delete or .remove should be doable via an
> objectCursor +
> > .puts/.removes on the objectStore.
> They are not strictly needed, but they are a decent convinence
> feature, and with a proper implementation they can even be a
> performance optimization. With a cursor iterating a b-tree you can let
> the cursor keep a pointer to the b-tree entry. They way .delete and
> .update doesn't have to do a b-tree lookup at all.
> We're currently not able to do this since our backend (sqlite) doesn't
> have good enough cursor support, but I suspect that this will change
> at some point in the future. In the mean time it seems like a good
> thing to allow people to use API that will be faster in the future.

All your arguments revolve around what the spec and implementations might do
in the future.  Typically we add API surface area only for use cases that
are currently impossible to satisfy or proven performance bottlenecks.  I
agree that it's likely implementations will want to do optimizations like
this in the future, but until they do, it'll be hard to really understand
the implications and complications that might arrise.

Given that we can easily add to the API in the future but it's nearly
impossible to take it away without breaking sites, I think it's prudent to
remove this unnecessary surface area.  There are MANY other proven
performance/concurrency features in other database systems that we've chosen
to leave out for now for this reason.  I don't see what's special about this

I think we should leave in openObjectCursor/getObject but remove
openCursor/get for now.  We can then revisit any of these features as soon
as there are implementations (both in the UAs and in web sites) mature
enough for us to get real feedback on the features.

Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 21:24:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:11 UTC