Benchmark: caching - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

no cache
(function(){ var d = document.documentElement.classList; if (!(d.contains("avif-on1") || d.contains("avif-off1"))){ var avif = ""; var img = new Image(); img.onload = function(){d.add("avif-on")}; img.onerror = function(){d.add("avif-off")}; img.src = avif; } })();
cache
(function(){ var d = document.documentElement.classList; if (!(d.contains("avif-on1") || d.contains("avif-off1"))){ // check localstorage var sto = window.localStorage; var localStorageWebp = sto.getItem('avifsupp'); if (localStorageWebp == '1'){ d.add("avif-on"); } else if (localStorageWebp == '0'){ d.add("avif-off"); } else { var avif = ""; var img = new Image(); img.onload = function(){d.add("avif-on");sto.setItem('avifsupp', '1')}; img.onerror = function(){d.add("avif-off");sto.setItem('avifsupp', '0')}; img.src = avif; } } })();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
no cache
cache

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two caching strategies in a web browser. We have two test cases:

1. **No Cache**: This test case checks if an image is loaded without any cache.
2. **Cache**: This test case checks if an image is loaded with caching enabled.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we're comparing the performance of two options:

A) Loading an image directly from a variable (`avif`) and checking its availability in the `document.documentElement.classList`.
B) Checking local storage for cache data before loading the image.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Approach A (Loading image directly)**

Pros:

* Simple to implement
* No dependency on local storage or browser caching mechanisms

Cons:

* May lead to repeated requests to the server if the image is not available in the cache
* Can be slower due to additional network requests

**Approach B (Checking local storage for cache data)**

Pros:

* Reduces the number of network requests by checking local storage first
* Caching mechanism is more robust and reliable

Cons:

* Requires support for local storage, which might not be available in older browsers or certain environments
* May lead to slower execution times due to additional computation overhead

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, we're using the `window.localStorage` object, which is a standard feature of modern web browsers. The purpose of this library is to store and retrieve data locally on the client-side.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet.

**Other Considerations**

To ensure accurate results, it's essential to consider the following:

* Browser caching mechanisms: Different browsers may handle caching differently. This benchmark assumes a simple caching model; however, real-world applications might require more complex caching strategies.
* Network latency and bandwidth: The performance difference between these two approaches can be influenced by network conditions, such as latency and bandwidth.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you're interested in exploring alternative caching mechanisms or optimizing image loading in your web application:

1. **Service Workers**: Consider using Service Workers to implement a more robust caching mechanism that works across multiple platforms.
2. **Image Loading Libraries**: Use libraries like FastClick or images.js, which provide optimized image loading and caching solutions for web applications.
3. **Cache Control Headers**: Implement Cache Control headers in your server-side response to instruct browsers on how to cache resources.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the context of the MeasureThat.net benchmark!

Related benchmarks:

caching (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: no cache vs cache

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

no cache

cache

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):