5 ms·

unfortunately in the browser it needs to be downloaded so you’re stuck with indexeddb

sgbeal 2y ago
> unfortunately in the browser it needs to be downloaded so you’re stuck with indexeddb That argument implies that we're stuck with the browser's single built-in home page because every other web page has to be downloaded. How is having to download sqlite3.wasm any different from having to download HTML, CSS, JS, images, etc.?
- w0m 2y ago
  > How is having to download sqlite3.wasm any different from 'unnecessary' file size. K matter on the web still. I'm not normally a web guy, but from https://sqlite.org/download.html https://sqlite.org/download.html it looks like it's ~800k extra added to initial page load? Based on average mobile speed in US of 97.09Mbps; that's an extra half second added to initial page load. That's not trivial; maybe an extra 15% bounce rate on initial hits.
  - sgbeal 2y ago
    > ~800k extra added to initial page load? If you're serving it uncompressed, which no production-grade site will (for a given definition of "no"/"none"). > K matter on the web still. Not, i opine, for the types of apps which want to host client-side databases. These are client-side applications, not "web pages." Even a bare-bones, database-less google.com is now 3.14mb uncompressed (1.32 compressed), and that's not counting the pieces which uBlock Origin keep from loading. It loads somewhere around 2MB (uncompressed) of JS. Last i checked, gdrive downloaded some 14mb to get up and running. > that's an extra half second added to initial page load. That's not trivial; We'll have to agree to disagree on whether half a second extra initial-hit-only load time is trivial.
    - fwip 2y ago
      > If you're serving it uncompressed That 847 KB is actually the size of the (compressed) zip file, but it does contain other files. The compressed WASM + the JS to load it is probably about 500K, depending on the specifics of compression & minification.
  - Digit-Al 2y ago
    Makes me laugh. When I got my first computer in 1987 it took so long to load a small game from cassette that I could go downstairs, boil a kettle, make a cuppa, and bring it back to my room, and the game would be just about finished loading. Now people are moaning about an extra half a second lol How things change.
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      No, the narrative here is that things used to be fast and idiot JS devs have made everything bloated and slow.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - andrepd 2y ago
        Computers are thousands to millions of times faster. So yes, that's a true assessment.
        paulddraper 2y ago
        > millions of times faster Unless you had a 3KHz processor (and no processor ever had that), that statement is just not true.
        andrepd 2y ago
        It's not about raw clock speed, or a Zen 4 would be as fast as a Pentium 4 :)
  - jacobprall 2y ago
    It's a matter of use case - for simple web page or even a lightweight client-side app, maybe too big. But for tool with heavy data processing, I could see it being quite useful.
iansinnott 2y ago
It's too bad WebSQL never took off, as that was sqlite built in to the browser. From memory the wasm binary of wa-sqlite is ~1mb, which is certainly not nothing but is an acceptable one-time download size for many web apps. I've seen websites with single image files larger than that. Not an advocating for more bloated web apps, but a sqlite download might not be a deal breaker.

> unfortunately in the browser it needs to be downloaded so you’re stuck with indexeddb That argument implies that we're stuck with the browser's single built-in home page because every other web page has to be downloaded. How is having to download sqlite3.wasm any different from having to download HTML, CSS, JS, images, etc.?

w0m 2y ago
> How is having to download sqlite3.wasm any different from 'unnecessary' file size. K matter on the web still. I'm not normally a web guy, but from https://sqlite.org/download.html https://sqlite.org/download.html it looks like it's ~800k extra added to initial page load? Based on average mobile speed in US of 97.09Mbps; that's an extra half second added to initial page load. That's not trivial; maybe an extra 15% bounce rate on initial hits.
- sgbeal 2y ago
  > ~800k extra added to initial page load? If you're serving it uncompressed, which no production-grade site will (for a given definition of "no"/"none"). > K matter on the web still. Not, i opine, for the types of apps which want to host client-side databases. These are client-side applications, not "web pages." Even a bare-bones, database-less google.com is now 3.14mb uncompressed (1.32 compressed), and that's not counting the pieces which uBlock Origin keep from loading. It loads somewhere around 2MB (uncompressed) of JS. Last i checked, gdrive downloaded some 14mb to get up and running. > that's an extra half second added to initial page load. That's not trivial; We'll have to agree to disagree on whether half a second extra initial-hit-only load time is trivial.
  - fwip 2y ago
    > If you're serving it uncompressed That 847 KB is actually the size of the (compressed) zip file, but it does contain other files. The compressed WASM + the JS to load it is probably about 500K, depending on the specifics of compression & minification.
- Digit-Al 2y ago
  Makes me laugh. When I got my first computer in 1987 it took so long to load a small game from cassette that I could go downstairs, boil a kettle, make a cuppa, and bring it back to my room, and the game would be just about finished loading. Now people are moaning about an extra half a second lol How things change.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    No, the narrative here is that things used to be fast and idiot JS devs have made everything bloated and slow.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - andrepd 2y ago
      Computers are thousands to millions of times faster. So yes, that's a true assessment.
      - paulddraper 2y ago
        > millions of times faster Unless you had a 3KHz processor (and no processor ever had that), that statement is just not true.
        andrepd 2y ago
        It's not about raw clock speed, or a Zen 4 would be as fast as a Pentium 4 :)
- jacobprall 2y ago
  It's a matter of use case - for simple web page or even a lightweight client-side app, maybe too big. But for tool with heavy data processing, I could see it being quite useful.

iansinnott 2y ago

It's too bad WebSQL never took off, as that was sqlite built in to the browser. From memory the wasm binary of wa-sqlite is ~1mb, which is certainly not nothing but is an acceptable one-time download size for many web apps. I've seen websites with single image files larger than that. Not an advocating for more bloated web apps, but a sqlite download might not be a deal breaker.