Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
window.localStorage vs localStorage
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
window.localStorage vs localStorage
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
window.localStorage
window.localStorage
localStorage
localStorage
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
window.localStorage
localStorage
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:120.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/120.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 120 on Ubuntu
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=490428" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
window.localStorage
4054408.5 Ops/sec
localStorage
3035168.8 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON data for the MeasureThat.net benchmark. **Benchmark Definition and Options** The benchmark is comparing two options: `window.localStorage` and `localStorage`. These are both used to store small amounts of data in web applications, but they differ in how they interact with the browser's storage system. **Options Comparison** * **Window(localStorage)**: + Pros: This option uses the `window.localStorage` property, which is a part of the DOM (Document Object Model). It provides a more explicit way to access local storage and allows for more fine-grained control over its usage. + Cons: This approach can be slower and less efficient than using `localStorage`, as it requires an additional lookup through the window object. * **localStorage**: + Pros: This option uses the native `localStorage` API, which is a part of the HTML5 specification. It provides better performance and efficiency compared to the `window.localStorage` approach. + Cons: This approach can be less explicit and more prone to errors, as it relies on the browser's internal implementation. **Library and Purpose** In both test cases, no external libraries are used. The `localStorage` API is a native part of web browsers, and it does not require any additional imports or setup. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. Both options use standard JavaScript syntax and do not rely on any advanced features like async/await, promises, or closures. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to compare these two options in a different way, you could consider the following alternatives: * Use a third-party library that provides an abstraction layer over `localStorage`, such as IndexedDB or LocalStorage API wrappers. * Compare the performance of using `window.localStorage` versus `localStorage` on mobile devices, where the native implementation may differ from the desktop version. Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional setup and testing to ensure accurate results.
Related benchmarks:
localStorage vs sessionStorage vs Reading a Hardcoded Array Speedtest
Just localStorage vs sessionStorage Speedtest
In-memory, localStorage and sessionStorage Speedtest
aaaabbbnmmbhjhg
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?