feat: Add native sqflite indexeddb database

[krille-chan]

Another approach to add former fluffybox directly to
the sdk. So we avoid any
requirement for a new name.
Just name it "MatrixSdkDatabase".

Benchmarks from 22-11-2023

• FluffyChat latest main in profile mode
• Flutter 3.16.0
• Fairphone 5 with Android 13
• Account on famedly.de Synapse with 169 rooms

HiveCollections (for comparison)

• Branch: main
• Initial sync: Benchmark: Process sync -> 10181 ms (3955 items, 2.574209860935525 ms/item)
• App-start after initial sync:
  • Benchmark: Build database -> 114 ms
  • Benchmark: Get all user device keys from store -> 1431 ms
  • Benchmark: Get room list from store -> 691 ms

Matrix SDK Database (this here! Formerly known as FluffyBox)

• Branch: krille/add-matrix-sdk-database
• Initial sync: Benchmark: Process sync -> 5248 ms (3961 items, 1.3249179500126231 ms/item)
• App-start after initial sync:
  • Benchmark: Build database -> 320 ms
  • Benchmark: Get all user device keys from store -> 17 ms
  • Benchmark: Get room list from store -> 170 ms

Pure SQFlite Database (other approach)

• Branch: krille/sqflite-database
• Initial sync: Benchmark: Process sync -> 13808 ms (3961 items, 3.4859883867710173 ms/item)
• App-start after initial sync:
  • Benchmark: Build database -> 270 ms
  • Benchmark: Get all user device keys from store -> 101 ms
  • Benchmark: Get room list from store -> 323 ms

Notes

All tests have been done with encryption. So we used HiveCipher and SQLCipher.

I assume that Build database is more or less equal in Matrix SDK Database and the pure SQFlite Database and the difference is just luck here. That processing sync is so much slower there might be caused by that the pure sqflite database needs to handle some logic in sql while the Matrix SDK Database does this in Dart and then just puts values in the DB. Just putting key/values and dump a whole table seems to be the fastest with SQFlite.

What is definitely still ugly in any key/value store is our handling of inboundGroupSessions and the aggressive caching. But this can be improved to optimize RAM usage and speed.

[krille-chan]

Replaces #1541

[nico-famedly]

Hm, I feel like having an explicit IndexedDb and SqfliteDb backend would make more sense, instead of building an abstraction just to tear it down. Yes, this would be more maintenance overhead, but it would allow some neat optimizations like cursors into responses.

[krille-chan]

Hm, I feel like having an explicit IndexedDb and SqfliteDb backend would make more sense, instead of building an abstraction just to tear it down. Yes, this would be more maintenance overhead, but it would allow some neat optimizations like cursors into responses.

Well we had this discussion in refinement meeting already and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gkGEuoldL0IvFod05a4NTXVY4T4pXsGxL6EwSI41-o0/edit#heading=h.as6xvrbd4ygj I personally think the risk of platform specific bugs is too high. But we can put this again on the agenda on the next refinement

[nico-famedly]

So the actual database is too long for me to review and I am just assuming it is correct, since you copied it from the old implementation. There are some small suggestions here and there and some questions I have, otherwise this looks good to me.