2 ms·

> I find it kinda sad that browsers get to remove Web SQL on shaky grounds (which was just sqlite available to JS) i recently had to work with WebSQL in the co

by sgbeal 4y ago

> I find it kinda sad that browsers get to remove Web SQL on shaky grounds (which was just sqlite available to JS) i recently had to work with WebSQL in the context of comparing it to sqlite's new WASM support (of which i'm the developer). WebSQL, quite frankly, is a toy. Its execution model is far too limited and excludes all sorts of functionality, not the least of which is that it's impossible to delete a WebSQL db. > yet here we are, back to that same spot, but with less performance and more complexity Wrong. We have benchmarked the two in apples-to-apples comparisons, taking into account WebSQL's limitations. The two approaches are roughly equivalent, with both winning out under certain loads, despite WebSQL being implemented in native code.

ilyt 4y ago
Who is "we" and where I can see those benchmarks ? Also even at similar performance you still need to download a bunch of extra stuff to even run the WASM version. My whole webpage takes less than it...
- sgbeal 4y ago
  > Who is "we" We is the sqlite team. i'm the "JS/WASM Guy" for the project. > and where I can see those benchmarks ? You can't currently because we don't have them in a user-consumable form. We've done a tremendous amount of benchmarking during the development because All The Speed was one of our design goals. However, all such records were in transient spreadsheets intended for one-shot note-taking use, not publication. Once our documentation effort settles down, and responding to user feedback from the initial announcement slows down, i hope to implement a benchmarking application similar to: <https://rhashimoto.github.io/wa-sqlite/demo/benchmarks.html https://rhashimoto.github.io/wa-sqlite/demo/benchmarks.html> Until then, however, you'll simply have to (A) take my word for it, (B) try it out yourself, or (C) none of the above, as you wish. Edit: or (D): we have a WASM port of sqlite's standard benchmarking tool, known as "speedtest1", in the sqlite source tree, but getting it up and running requires reading a good deal of documentation: <https://sqlite.org/src/dir/ext/wasm&ci=trunk https://sqlite.org/src/dir/ext/wasm&ci=trunk> That tool is how we've benchmarked it so far, with the exception of comparing it to WebSQL, which required a custom application which is also in that directory (batch-runner.*). batch-runner, however, is in no way user friendly.

by sgbeal 4y ago

ilyt 4y ago

Who is "we" and where I can see those benchmarks ? Also even at similar performance you still need to download a bunch of extra stuff to even run the WASM version. My whole webpage takes less than it...

sgbeal 4y ago
> Who is "we" We is the sqlite team. i'm the "JS/WASM Guy" for the project. > and where I can see those benchmarks ? You can't currently because we don't have them in a user-consumable form. We've done a tremendous amount of benchmarking during the development because All The Speed was one of our design goals. However, all such records were in transient spreadsheets intended for one-shot note-taking use, not publication. Once our documentation effort settles down, and responding to user feedback from the initial announcement slows down, i hope to implement a benchmarking application similar to: <https://rhashimoto.github.io/wa-sqlite/demo/benchmarks.html https://rhashimoto.github.io/wa-sqlite/demo/benchmarks.html> Until then, however, you'll simply have to (A) take my word for it, (B) try it out yourself, or (C) none of the above, as you wish. Edit: or (D): we have a WASM port of sqlite's standard benchmarking tool, known as "speedtest1", in the sqlite source tree, but getting it up and running requires reading a good deal of documentation: <https://sqlite.org/src/dir/ext/wasm&ci=trunk https://sqlite.org/src/dir/ext/wasm&ci=trunk> That tool is how we've benchmarked it so far, with the exception of comparing it to WebSQL, which required a custom application which is also in that directory (batch-runner.*). batch-runner, however, is in no way user friendly.