- From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:24:58 -0700
- To: Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAD73md+m5xbONsL-GQhfGKQJ38h623Rh64PQNH9DYWE08Rn4FA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com> wrote: > IndexedDB supports binary values as per the structured clone algorithm > as implemented in Chrome and Firefox. > > IndexedDB needs to support binary keys (ArrayBuffer, TypedArrays). > > Many popular KV stores accept binary keys (BDB, Tokyo, LevelDB). The > Chrome implementation of IDB is already serializing keys to binary. > > JS is moving more and more towards binary data across the board > (WebSockets, TypedArrays, FileSystemAPI). IDB is not quite there if it > does not support binary keys. > > Binary keys are more efficient than Base 64 encoded keys, e.g. a 128 > bit key in base 256 is 16 bytes, but 22 bytes in base 64. > Would using DOMString keys work for your use case? DOMString is defined as a list of 16-bit integers and I don't see anything in the IndexedDB specification that treats the strings as if they contained Unicode, so I would naively expect that packing your 64 bits into a DOMString of length 4 (16 bits / unit) would work fine. - James > > Am working on a production system storing 3 million keys in IndexedDB. > In about 6 months it will be storing 60 million keys in IndexedDB. > > Without support for binary keys, that's 330mb wasted storage > (60,000,000 * (22 - 16)) not to mention the wasted CPU overhead spent > Base64 encoding and decoding keys. > >
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 20:25:47 UTC