Benchmark: Just localStorage vs sessionStorage Speedtest

Script Preparation code:

localStorage.setItem('foo', 'bar')
sessionStorage.setItem('foo', 'bar')

Tests:

localStorage
var FOO = localStorage.getItem('foo');
sessionStorage
var FOO = sessionStorage.getItem('foo');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
localStorage
sessionStorage

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 and explore what's being tested on this particular benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two storage mechanisms: `localStorage` and `sessionStorage`. Both are used to store small amounts of data in a web browser, but they have some key differences:

*   **localStorage**: Stores data even when the page is closed. Data is stored in the user's browser cache and can be accessed later by the same origin (domain, protocol, and port).
*   **sessionStorage**: Stores data only while the page is open. When the page is closed, the data is deleted.

The benchmark aims to measure which of these storage mechanisms is faster when retrieving data.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1.  `localStorage`
2.  `sessionStorage`

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

*   **localStorage**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster, as it only needs to retrieve data from the browser cache.
        *   More reliable, as data is stored even after the page is closed.
    *   Cons:
        *   Data persistence can lead to security issues if not properly validated.
        *   May have performance implications due to caching.
*   **sessionStorage**:
    *   Pros:
        *   More secure, as data is deleted when the page is closed, reducing the risk of data leakage.
        *   Easier to manage data, as it's only stored while the page is open.
    *   Cons:
        *   Slower, as it needs to retrieve data from the browser cache each time the page is reloaded.
        *   Less reliable, as data may be lost when the page is closed.

**Library usage**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. The code only relies on built-in JavaScript features and APIs.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for measuring storage performance could include:

*   Using other storage mechanisms, such as IndexedDB or Web Storage API.
*   Measuring data retrieval time using a timing function, like `performance.now()`.
*   Comparing the execution speed of different JavaScript engines or browsers.

Overall, this benchmark provides valuable insights into the performance characteristics of `localStorage` and `sessionStorage`, helping developers make informed decisions when choosing between these storage mechanisms for their applications.

Related benchmarks:

Just localStorage vs sessionStorage Speedtest (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: localStorage vs sessionStorage

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

localStorage

sessionStorage

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):