Re: [Bug 11351] New: [IndexedDB] Should we have a maximum key size (or something like that)?

* Jonas Sicking wrote:
>The question is in part where the limit for "ridiculous" goes. 1K keys
>are sort of ridiculous, though I'm sure it happens.

By "ridiculous" I mean that common systems would run out of memory. That
is different among systems, and I would expect developers to consider it
up to an order of magnitude, but not beyond that. Clearly, to me, a DB
system should not fail because I want to store 100 keys á 100KB.

>> Note that, since JavaScript does not offer key-value dictionaries for
>> complex keys, and now that JSON.stringify is widely implemented, it's
>> quite common for people to emulate proper dictionaries by using that to
>> work around this particular JavaScript limitation. Which would likely
>> extend to more persistent forms of storage.
>I don't understand what you mean here.

I am saying that it's quite natural to want to have string keys that are
much, much longer than someone might envision the length of string keys,
mainly because their notion of "string keys" is different from the key
length you might get from serializing arbitrary objects.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Saturday, 20 November 2010 04:13:43 UTC