Re: [IndexedDB] .value of no-duplicate cursors

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:

> This discussion seemed to die off with no clear resolution.
> Since I had forgotten about this thread I specified that the first
> item is always the one returned for _NO_DUPLICATE cursors. Where
> "first" means "with lowest object-store key".

It seems as though "first" should mean with the highest key in the case of
reverse cursors.  This is how it's implemented in Chromium.


> I don't feel strongly either way if they should be removed or not. SQL
> has 'unique', but we of course we're not aiming to match SQL's feature
> set.
> / Jonas

Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 12:29:59 UTC