Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
To cache or not to cache
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
cached document vs direct document access
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<p id="hello">hello</p>
Tests:
cached document
function start() { var doc = document; var p = doc.getElementById('hello'); return p; }
direct document access
function start() { var p = doc.getElementById('hello'); return p; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
cached document
direct document access
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 dive into the world of microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition and Script Preparation Code** The benchmark definition provides a basic JavaScript function that simulates accessing an HTML element with the ID "hello". The script preparation code is empty, which means no additional setup or initialization is required before running the test. However, since we have an HTML preparation code, it's clear that this benchmark tests how browsers handle caching for subsequent accesses to the same document. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared in this benchmark: 1. **Cached Document**: This option checks if the browser caches the initial document fetch and reuses the cached version for subsequent accesses. 2. **Direct Document Access**: This option checks if the browser always re-fetches the entire document from the server, even if it's already cached. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Cached Document:** Pros: * Faster execution times since the browser can reuse the cached version * Reduces network latency and overhead Cons: * May not work as expected in certain scenarios (e.g., when the document changes) * Can lead to stale data if the cached copy is outdated **Direct Document Access:** Pros: * Ensures that the latest version of the document is retrieved * Works correctly even if the document changes between accesses Cons: * Slower execution times since the browser needs to re-fetch the entire document * Increases network latency and overhead **Library Usage** In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may use caching libraries or modules under the hood. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward test of browser caching behavior. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring similar benchmarks, here are some alternatives: 1. **Benchmarking websites:** * jsbench.net * jsperf.com * microbenchmark.org 2. **Browser-specific benchmarks:** * Chrome's benchmarking tools (e.g., `chrome://benchmarks/`) * Firefox's benchmarking tools (e.g., `about:benchmark`) Keep in mind that each website and tool has its own strengths and weaknesses, so it's essential to choose the one that best suits your needs.
Related benchmarks:
createElement vs cloneNode (not deep) vs innerHTML
createElement vs cloneNode vs innerHTML(template)
L0n1 createElement vs cloneNode vs innerHTML
createElement vs cloneNode vs innerHTML (Apua)
createElement vs cloneNode vs innerHTML vs innerHTML(single innerHTML)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?