Benchmark: setIsMinViewportSize on resize event vs matchMedia vs ResizeObserver

HTML Preparation code:

<div>
  Hello
</div>

Script Preparation code:

isMinViewportSize = false;
minViewportSize = 500

function setIsMinViewportSize(value) {
    if (isMinViewportSize !== value) {
        isMinViewportSize = value;
        // simulate rendering
        getComputedStyle(document.body)
    }
}

function resize() {
    let direction = 'up';
    for (let i = 400; direction === 'up' || i > 400; direction === 'up' ? i++ : i--) {
        window.resizeTo(i, 1000)
        if (i === 600) { // up 200, down 200
            direction = 'down';
        }
    }
}

Tests:

resize event
const handleResize = event => { setIsMinViewportSize(window.innerWidth >= minViewportSize); } window.addEventListener("resize", handleResize); resize();
matchMedia
const handleMatchChange = ({ matches }) => { setIsMinViewportSize(matches); } const match1 = window.matchMedia(`screen and (min-width: ${minViewportSize}px)`) match1.addEventListener('change', handleMatchChange); resize();
ResizeObserver
const observer = new ResizeObserver(entries => { setIsMinViewportSize(entries[0].contentRect.width >= minViewportSize) }) observer.observe(document.body) resize();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
resize event
matchMedia
ResizeObserver

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
resize event	9146.4 Ops/sec
matchMedia	46885.2 Ops/sec
ResizeObserver	49072.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

On MeasureThat.net, the provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of three different approaches to check if the viewport size has reached a minimum threshold (`minViewportSize`) on resize events:

1. **Resize Event**: This approach uses the `window.addEventListener("resize", handleResize)` method to listen for resize events and update the `isMinViewportSize` flag accordingly.
2. **matchMedia**: This approach uses the `window.matchMedia()` API to check if the viewport meets a specific media query condition (`screen and (min-width: ${minViewportSize}px)`) on every frame of the animation loop.
3. **ResizeObserver**: This approach uses the `ResizeObserver` API to observe changes in the viewport size and update the `isMinViewportSize` flag accordingly.

**Options being compared**

The three approaches are being compared to determine which one is the fastest:

* `resize event`: The overhead of listening for resize events and handling them.
* `matchMedia`: The overhead of using the `matchMedia()` API to check for media query matches.
* `ResizeObserver`: The overhead of using the `ResizeObserver` API to observe changes in viewport size.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Resize Event**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and lightweight
		+ Fast because it only needs to check once per frame.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slow if there are many resize events (e.g., due to frequent scrolling).
2. **matchMedia**
	* Pros:
		+ More precise control over the media query condition.
		+ Can be faster than `resize event` because it only needs to check once per frame, regardless of how often the viewport changes size.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more JavaScript code and setup (e.g., creating a new `matchMedia()` instance).
3. **ResizeObserver**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient than `resize event` because it only needs to observe the viewport size once, regardless of how often it changes.
		+ Can be faster than `matchMedia` because it uses a more efficient API that doesn't require frequent checks.
	* Cons:
		+ Less precise control over the viewport size comparison (only compares the current width).
		+ May not work in older browsers or environments that don't support `ResizeObserver`.

**Other considerations**

* The use of `getComputedStyle(document.body)` to simulate rendering is likely a performance optimization to ensure the benchmark results are accurate.
* The `resize()` function simulates a complex animation loop with multiple resize events, which can affect the results.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The test uses some advanced JavaScript features:

* **Closures**: The `handleResize` and `handleMatchChange` functions use closures to capture the current state of the `isMinViewportSize` flag.
* **Asynchronous execution**: The tests use asynchronous execution (e.g., `window.addEventListener()`) to allow for concurrent testing.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives could include:

* Using a web worker or worker thread to offload the viewport size checking and resizing tasks.
* Implementing custom JavaScript code to handle the viewport size changes instead of relying on built-in APIs like `ResizeObserver` or `matchMedia`.
* Using a third-party library that provides optimized viewport size checking and resizing functionality.

Related benchmarks:

setIsMinViewportSize on resize event vs matchMedia vs ResizeObserver (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: resize event vs matchMedia vs ResizeObserver

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

resize event

matchMedia

ResizeObserver

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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