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
Go 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>
window.localStorage
4.1M/s
localStorage
3.0M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
window.localStorage
4,054,408 Ops/sec
localStorage
3,035,169 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
In-memory, localStorage and sessionStorage Speedtest
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?