Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
prova asd
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
prova 1 vs prova 2
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
prova 1
fetch('https://blockchain.info/ticker', {mode: 'no-cors'});
prova 2
fetch('https://blockchain.info/ticker');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
prova 1
prova 2
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark data and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The `Name`, `Description`, `Script Preparation Code`, and `Html Preparation Code` fields are empty, which means there's no description or setup code for the benchmark. This is a basic JavaScript microbenchmark, where the focus is on measuring the execution time of specific lines of code. **Individual Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. `fetch('https://blockchain.info/ticker', {mode: 'no-cors'});` 2. `fetch('https://blockchain.info/ticker');` These test cases use the `fetch` API, which is a modern JavaScript method for making HTTP requests. **Options Compared** The two test cases differ in their usage of the `mode` parameter when calling `fetch`. The first test case uses `{mode: 'no-cors'}`, while the second test case doesn't specify a mode. **Pros and Cons of Different Approaches** * **Using `mode: 'no-cors'`:** + Pros: - May provide more accurate results by avoiding CORS-related overhead. - Can help isolate the effect of the fetch API on JavaScript execution time. + Cons: - Requires additional setup and handling for CORS-related issues. - Might not accurately represent real-world usage scenarios, where CORS is often handled automatically. * **Not specifying a mode:** + Pros: - Simpler implementation, as the browser handles CORS by default. - More representative of real-world usage scenarios, where CORS is often handled automatically. + Cons: - Might introduce additional overhead or latency due to CORS-related issues. **Library and Purpose** The `fetch` API is a built-in JavaScript library that allows making HTTP requests from the browser. It provides a modern and flexible way to handle network requests, including support for CORS, caching, and more. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in these test cases. They only rely on the standard `fetch` API and basic JavaScript syntax. **Other Considerations** * **Device Platform**: The benchmark results include information about the device platform (Desktop), which might be relevant when considering the impact of different platforms on performance. * **Operating System**: The results also include information about the operating system (Windows 7), which could affect the execution time due to differences in hardware and software configurations. **Alternatives** There are alternative ways to create microbenchmarks, such as: 1. Using a benchmarking library like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark. 2. Implementing custom benchmarking code using `performance.now()` or similar methods. 3. Utilizing existing benchmarking frameworks like Jest or Mocha. These alternatives offer different trade-offs in terms of ease of use, flexibility, and accuracy, but can provide more comprehensive benchmarking capabilities for complex JavaScript applications.
Related benchmarks:
Iterating over string
Lodash Replace/Split VS JS Replace/Split
Reduce w/ Lowercase vs. Magic Regex
mon bench2
regex replace vs split vs loop
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?