Benchmark: fetch vs ajax call 999999

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.1.1.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function showResult(data) {
    console.log(data);
}
var newUrl = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis";

Tests:

Ajax
var request = $.ajax({ type: "GET", url: newUrl, success: showResult, data: null });
Fetch
fetch(newUrl) .then( function(response) { response.json().then(function(data) { showResult(data); }); } ) .catch(function(err) { console.log('Fetch Error :-S', err); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ajax
Fetch

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 break down the provided JSON data and explain what is tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript APIs: `fetch` (a modern API for making HTTP requests) and jQuery's AJAX (`$.ajax`) method. The benchmark aims to determine which API is faster for a specific use case: making a GET request to a URL.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a simple function `showResult` that logs the received data to the console. It also sets up a variable `newUrl` with the URL to be requested using either `fetch` or AJAX.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to jQuery, which is used for making AJAX requests in this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Ajax**: This test case uses jQuery's AJAX method to make a GET request to the defined URL (`newUrl`). The `success` callback function is called when the request completes, passing the received data as an argument.
2. **Fetch**: This test case uses the modern `fetch` API to make a GET request to the same URL (`newUrl`). The response is processed using two levels of promise chaining: first, the `response.json()` method is called to convert the response body to JSON, and then the resulting JSON data is passed to the `showResult` function.

**Library Used**

In both test cases, jQuery is used as a library. Its purpose is to simplify the process of making HTTP requests by providing an API for working with asynchronous requests.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses two modern JavaScript features:

1. **Arrow functions**: In the `fetch` test case, arrow functions are used to define small, anonymous functions (`function(response) { ... }` and `function(data) { ... }`). This syntax is more concise than traditional function definitions.
2. **Promise chaining**: Both test cases use promise chaining to handle the asynchronous nature of HTTP requests. In both cases, a promise is created on success or failure, and then further operations are performed on that promise.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Fetch**:
	* Pros: Modern API, concise syntax, easy to read and maintain.
	* Cons: May require additional setup for error handling and response processing.
2. **AJAX (jQuery)**:
	* Pros: Mature API, extensive community support, easy integration with existing codebases.
	* Cons: More verbose syntax, may not be as modern or efficient as the `fetch` API.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives for making HTTP requests in JavaScript, consider:

1. **XMLHttpRequest**: A traditional, older API for working with HTTP requests.
2. ** Axios**: A popular, lightweight library for making HTTP requests that provides a simpler and more intuitive API than jQuery's AJAX method.
3. **Puppeteer**: A Node.js library developed by the Chrome team that allows you to automate headless browsing, including making HTTP requests.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

fetch vs ajax call 999999 (version: 0)

fetch vs ajax call

Comparing performance of: Ajax vs Fetch

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ajax

Fetch

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):