3 ms·

I'm not sure that SQL in the browser is such a good idea in the long run. Database migrations are hard enough when there's just one instance of the DB; managing

I'm not sure that SQL in the browser is such a good idea in the long run. Database migrations are hard enough when there's just one instance of the DB; managing and performing migrations in each individual user's browser is going to be incredibly painful. Performance is also likely to be an issue.

whelming_wave 5y ago
your phone already has some tens or hundreds of SQLite databases on it. it requires some care, but many already go through the effort in their apps, so i can imagine web developers going to the same effort if they need it. though i can also imagine them going through that effort when they don’t, so…
samwillis 5y ago
I would take the hassle of carefully constructed database migrations over a no-sql database with records in multiple unknown states from different versions requiring handling routines scattered throughout my codebase. SQL will always win, as will the web, the potential of SQL in the browser for PWAs is incredible. It also allows alignment of mobile and web apps for local storage. It was also the correct decision to drop WebSQL, it would have limited the api and held it back. With WASM SQL we can all use whatever sql db we want with whatever extensions we want. Row/Column oriented? Our decision (SQL.js or DuckDB right now). Need a specific full text search extension, or a custom one? Just compile it in. Have an idea for a funky CRDT based replication system? Write an extension and add it.
- tehbeard 5y ago
  > I would take the hassle of carefully constructed database migrations over a no-sql database with records in multiple unknown states from different versions requiring handling routines scattered throughout my codebase. Couldn't you also carefully construct the data migrations for a no-sql store like IndexedDB? In fact they provide a mechanism for it vs. having to bolt one into your SQL system?
JohnBooty 5y ago
managing and performing migrations in each individual user's browser is going to be incredibly painful What's the alternative? Typical NoSQL slop where we basically just wind up doing the "painful" SQL stuff anyway in what ultimately winds up being an even more painful process?
bastawhiz 5y ago
What's the alternative if you want to efficiently store data in the browser? SQL isn't the problem, every database requires migrations.

whelming_wave 5y ago

your phone already has some tens or hundreds of SQLite databases on it. it requires some care, but many already go through the effort in their apps, so i can imagine web developers going to the same effort if they need it. though i can also imagine them going through that effort when they don’t, so…

samwillis 5y ago

I would take the hassle of carefully constructed database migrations over a no-sql database with records in multiple unknown states from different versions requiring handling routines scattered throughout my codebase. SQL will always win, as will the web, the potential of SQL in the browser for PWAs is incredible. It also allows alignment of mobile and web apps for local storage. It was also the correct decision to drop WebSQL, it would have limited the api and held it back. With WASM SQL we can all use whatever sql db we want with whatever extensions we want. Row/Column oriented? Our decision (SQL.js or DuckDB right now). Need a specific full text search extension, or a custom one? Just compile it in. Have an idea for a funky CRDT based replication system? Write an extension and add it.

tehbeard 5y ago
> I would take the hassle of carefully constructed database migrations over a no-sql database with records in multiple unknown states from different versions requiring handling routines scattered throughout my codebase. Couldn't you also carefully construct the data migrations for a no-sql store like IndexedDB? In fact they provide a mechanism for it vs. having to bolt one into your SQL system?

JohnBooty 5y ago

managing and performing migrations in each individual user's browser is going to be incredibly painful What's the alternative? Typical NoSQL slop where we basically just wind up doing the "painful" SQL stuff anyway in what ultimately winds up being an even more painful process?

bastawhiz 5y ago

What's the alternative if you want to efficiently store data in the browser? SQL isn't the problem, every database requires migrations.