Benchmark: aaaabbbnmmbhjhgsdf

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

4
localStorage.setItem('foo222', JSON.stringify({'est should ideal': 'ly be wrapped in a user', ' gesture. Do not ask f': 'or persistent storage on pa', 'ge load, or in other bootstrap ': 'code, the browser may', ' prompt the us': 'er for permission. If the user isn', 't doing anything that the': 'y think needs to be saved, the prompt may be confusing,', ' and they': 'll likely reject the re', 'quest. Additionally, don': 't prompt too frequently. ', 'I': 'f the user decided not to'}))
2
var FOO = JSON.parse(localStorage.getItem('foo222'));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
4
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
4	2644928.2 Ops/sec
2	1952865.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of two approaches: using `localStorage` to store and retrieve data, and parsing `localStorage` data using `JSON.parse()`. The benchmark is designed to measure the execution time of these two approaches.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **Using `localStorage`**: This approach stores a string value in `localStorage` using `localStorage.setItem()` and then retrieves it using `localStorage.getItem()`.
2. **Parsing `localStorage` data using `JSON.parse()`**: This approach uses `JSON.parse()` to parse the stored string value retrieved from `localStorage`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using `localStorage`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
		+ No additional dependencies or libraries required.
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to performance issues if the data is large or complex, as it needs to be parsed and serialized.
2. **Parsing `localStorage` data using `JSON.parse()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution time, as it avoids the need for serialization and deserialization.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires a JSON parser library (e.g., `json-stringify-safe`) to be included in the test environment.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the `json-stringify-safe` library to parse and stringify JSON data. This library is used to convert the stored string value from `localStorage` to a JavaScript object, which can then be parsed using `JSON.parse()`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that are not widely supported across browsers.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Storage size**: The benchmark uses small string values for demonstration purposes. In a real-world scenario, larger data sets may impact performance.
2. **Concurrency**: The benchmark does not account for concurrent executions, which could affect the results in a multi-threaded environment.
3. **Browser caching**: The benchmark does not consider browser caching, which might influence the execution time of subsequent runs.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these approaches include:

1. **Using `sessionStorage`**: Similar to `localStorage`, but with session-based storage that is cleared when the session ends.
2. **Using a custom data storage solution**: Implementing a custom data storage solution using Web Workers, WebAssembly, or other modern web technologies.
3. **Avoiding local storage altogether**: Using alternative data storage solutions like IndexedDB, WebSockets, or message queues to store and retrieve data.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and security constraints of your application.

Related benchmarks:

aaaabbbnmmbhjhgsdf (version: 0)

bbbbb

Comparing performance of: 4 vs 2

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

4

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):