Benchmark: Fetch cache (default) vs no cache (no-store) GET method

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="test"></div>

Tests:

Fetch (default)
fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/todos', { method: 'GET' }) .then((response) => { return response.json(); }) .then((data) => { console.log(data); });
Fetch (no-store)
fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/todos', { method: 'GET', cache: 'no-store' }) .then((response) => { return response.json(); }) .then((data) => { console.log(data); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Fetch (default)
Fetch (no-store)

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two approaches when making a GET request using the Fetch API: one with caching enabled (default) and the other with caching disabled (no-store).

**Options compared:**

1. **Caching**: The main difference between the two approaches is whether caching is enabled or not.
	* **Caching enabled (default)**: The browser will store the response in its cache, so subsequent requests for the same URL can be served directly from the cache without making a new request to the server.
	* **Caching disabled (no-store)**: The browser does not store the response in its cache. Each request is treated as a new request, and the entire request-response cycle is executed every time.
2. **Request behavior**: Both approaches use the same underlying Fetch API method. However, the difference lies in how they handle subsequent requests for the same URL.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Caching enabled (default)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Reduces the number of requests made to the server, which can improve performance.
		+ Caches are typically small and don't affect performance.
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to stale data being served if the cached response is outdated.
2. **Caching disabled (no-store)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Ensures that the latest data from the server is always used, even if the cache is outdated.
	* Cons:
		+ Increases the number of requests made to the server, which can decrease performance.

**Library and its purpose:**

The Fetch API is a modern JavaScript library for making HTTP requests. It provides an easy-to-use interface for making requests, handling responses, and managing network state.

In this benchmark, the Fetch API is used as the underlying mechanism for making GET requests to the specified URL. The `fetch()` function takes two arguments:

* `url`: The URL of the request.
* Options object: An optional options object that can contain various settings for the request, such as the method (`GET` in this case), headers, and caching behavior.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax:**

In this benchmark, there is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used beyond what's typically available in modern browsers. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax to define functions, manipulate variables, and execute requests using the Fetch API.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to test other caching strategies or approaches, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Service worker**: You can use a service worker to implement custom caching logic for your application.
2. **HTTP cache headers**: You can modify HTTP response headers to control caching behavior.
3. **Custom caching mechanisms**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might want to explore custom caching mechanisms using libraries like Redis or Memcached.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional infrastructure and configuration beyond what's typically available with the Fetch API alone.

That's a summary of what's being tested in this benchmark! If you have any further questions or need more clarification, feel free to ask.

Related benchmarks:

Fetch cache (default) vs no cache (no-store) GET method (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Fetch (default) vs Fetch (no-store)

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Fetch (default)

Fetch (no-store)

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):