Your best bet is to report implementation/performance issues to the browser vendors, rather than here, unless you believe that there is something inherent in the spec that results in slow implementations. I'd say in the specific case of Chrome, we probably have not optimized for the case of writing out a 100MB ArrayBuffer - logging a bug at http://crbug.com describing your use case would be a useful way to have this addressed, at least on that platform. On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com> wrote: > >> Er, IndexedDB should handle ArrayBuffers just fine. If you're seeing >> problems with that that's an implementation bug, not a case that the spec >> failed to handle. >> > You're right it does, I just checked. Nevertheless there are some issues. > > This testsite: http://codeflow.org/issues/indexeddb.html > Putting 50mb takes between 2.5 to 8 seconds. Getting it between 2 to 4 > seconds. > Putting 100mb doesn't work in Chrome at all and throws an exception on the > put after half a second. > > For comparison, in python: > Writing 50mb takes between 40-80ms. Reading takes around 50ms. > > > >
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 16:56:13 UTC