3 ms·
As mentioned in the article, this could be adapted to make a useful polyfill for those browsers which don't offer SQLite access natively.
by pixelcort 15y ago
As mentioned in the article, this could be adapted to make a useful polyfill for those browsers which don't offer SQLite access natively.
- malkia 15y agoFor a second I thought polyfill, as in polygon fill :)
- riffraff 15y agoI may be wrong, but I doubt there are people using WebSQL storage as an in memory database that will be wiped out as soon as the page is closed.
- bradhe 15y agoIt does open up some really interesting scenarios, though. For instance, I know a company that displays a large amount of data to it's users, so sticking that in WebSQL is useful to them as it makes that data easily queryable. However, since data is their thing they don't want it to persist!
- malkia 15y agoI understand when this is done in a server, where you have control of how big your instance can be, but wouldn't that put too much memory pressure on the browser? What if the browser client is 32-bit? Even in Chrome where each page has a separate process one can make it go out of memory.
- pork 15y agoI think he was referring to the data manipulation capabilities of SQL, things like GROUP BY and WHERE and ORDER BY that can be offloaded to the client, not as a data caching benefit.