4 ms·

> 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://

by 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.

by w0m 2y ago

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.