Re: IndexedDB, Blobs and partial Blobs - Large Files

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Aymeric Vitte <>wrote:

>  I am aware of [1], and really waiting for this to be available.
> So you are suggesting something like {id:file_id, chunk1:chunk1,
> chunk2:chunk2, etc}?

No, because you'd still have to fetch, modify, and re-insert the value each
time. Hopefully implementations store blobs by reference so that doesn't
involve huge data copies, at least.

I was imagining that if you're building up a record in a store with primary
key file_id that you could store chunks as entirely separate records with
primary key [file_id, 1], [file_id, 2] etc. either in the same store or a
separate chunk store. Once the last chunk arrives, fetch all the chunks and
delete those records.

> Related to [1] I have tried a "workaround" (not for fun, because I needed
> to test at least with two different browsers): store the chunks as
> ArrayBuffers in an Array {id:file_id, [chunk1, chunk2,... ]}, after testing
> different methods the idea was to new Blob([chunk1, chunk2,... ]) on query
> and avoid creating a big ArrayBuffer on update.
> Unfortunately, with my configuration, Chrome crashes systematically on
> update for "big" files (tested with 250 MB file and chunks of 2 MB, does
> not seem to be something really enormous).

Please file a bug at if you can reproduce it.

> Then I was thinking to use different keys as you suggest but maybe it's
> not very easy to manipulate and you still have to use an Array to
> concatenate, what's the best method?
> Regards,
> Aymeric
> [1]
> Le 02/12/2013 23:38, Joshua Bell a écrit :
>  On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Aymeric Vitte <>wrote:
>> This is about retrieving a large file with partial data and storing it in
>> an incremental way in indexedDB.
> ...
>> This seems not efficient at all, was it never discussed the possibility
>> to be able to append data directly in indexedDB?
>  You're correct, IndexedDB doesn't have a notion of updating part of a
> value, or even querying part of a value (other than via indexes). We've
> received developer feedback that partial data update and query would both
> be valuable, but haven't put significant thought into how it would be
> implemented. Conceivably you could imagine an API for "get" or "put" with
> an additional keypath into the object. We (Chromium) currently treat the
> stored value as opaque so we'd need to deserialize/reserialize the entire
> thing anyway unless we added extra smarts in there, at which point a smart
> caching layer implemented in JS and tuned for the webapp might be more
> effective.
>  Blobs are pesky since they're not mutable. So even with the above
> hand-waved API you'd still be paying for a fetch/concatenate/store. (FWIW,
> Chromium's support for Blobs in IndexedDB is still in progress, so this is
> all in the abstract.)
>  I think the best advice at the moment for dealing with incremental data
> in IDB is to store the chunks under separate keys, and concatenate when
> either all of the data has arrived or lazily on use.
> --
> Peersm :
> node-Tor :
> GitHub :

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 19:56:19 UTC