4 ms·
> but… people didn't like it and it didn't catch on. Mozilla didn't like, developers liked it. Mozilla's excuse was "which SQL spec?" which could have been sol
by aikah 8y ago
> but… people didn't like it and it didn't catch on.
Mozilla didn't like, developers liked it. Mozilla's excuse was "which SQL spec?" which could have been solved with a bit of work. Same as the File System API proposals by google. I'm sorry but indexed-db is not a replacement for these 2. indexed-db is slow and inefficient when it comes to data storage and is horrible to query.
- radex 8y agoAgreed! IDB is simpler in some ways, but having a real relational database is a lot better for many advanced applications — and also can be more easily used for porting to different platforms, since you can run SQLite on any native platform
- invaliduser 8y agoIndexedDB used to be slow, but is it still yet? Not so sure, performance does not seem that bad (see http://reyesr.github.io/html5-storage-benchmark/ http://reyesr.github.io/html5-storage-benchmark/ ) Do you have some benchmark that shows it is indeed slow as of today?
- detaro 8y agoWanting a specified query language for a database API isn't really an excuse IMHO. (and if it really were just "a bit of work", one has to ask why the proposers then didn't bother to just do that. As cool as sqlite is, tying browsers to a specific version of it seems questionable)