Something like this is what you'd prefer?

  const sqlPromise = initSqlJs({
    locateFile: file => `https://path/to/your/dist/folder/dist/${file}`
  });
  const dataPromise = fetch("/path/to/databse.sqlite").then(res => res.arrayBuffer());
  const [SQL, buf] = await Promise.all([sqlPromise, dataPromise]);
  const db = new SQL.Database(new Uint8Array(buf));

I hate those variable names, but dropping the Promise bit makes them super unclear to me. Suggestions, both on entirely what I'm doing and on preferable names, welcome

tbh I kind of prefer the non-promised version because the user is probably constructing the SQL object somewhere besides right where they're fetching the data? It's only there for reference really, and a user can make it more efficient if they want?

But of course it's your repo! So whatever makes sense to you wfm

  const sqlPromise = initSqlJs({
    locateFile: file => `https://path/to/your/dist/folder/dist/${file}`
  });
  const dataPromise = fetch("/path/to/databse.sqlite").then(res => res.arrayBuffer());
  const [SQL, buf] = await Promise.all([sqlPromise, dataPromise]);
  const db = new SQL.Database(new Uint8Array(buf));

This looks good to me. Just drop the extra indentation.

the user is probably constructing the SQL object somewhere besides right where they're fetching the data

Yes, they will probably have the creation of sqlPromise somewhere else. But the await for that promise should probably still be near the code that will use it, not near the code that instantiated it. I don't see a good reason to fetch the .wasm and the .sqlite sequentially instead of in parallel, even in the context of a larger application.

works for me, will update it

Thanks!