W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

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

From: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:19:32 +0000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F753B2C401114141B426DB383C8885E0623FB95D@TK5EX14MBXC128.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:42 PM

>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > Any more thoughts on this?
>> I don't feel strongly one way or another. Implementation wise I don't
>> really understand why implementations couldn't use keys of unlimited
>> size. I wouldn't imagine implementations would want to use fixed-size
>> allocations for every key anyway, right (which would be a strong
>> reason to keep maximum size down).

I don't have a very strong opinion either. I don't quite agree with the guideline of "having something working slowly is better than not working at all"...as having something not work at all sometimes may help developers hit a wall and think differently about their approach for a given problem. That said, if folks think this is an instance where we're better off not having a limit I'm fine with it. 

>> Pablo, do you know why the back ends you were looking at had such
>> relatively low limits?

Mostly an implementation thing. Keys (and all other non-blob columns) typically need to fit in a page.  Predictable perf is also nice (no linked lists, high density/locality, etc.), but not as fundamental as page size.

Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 00:20:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:14 UTC