Benchmark: fetch vs ajax call fixed

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function showResult(data) {
    console.log(data);
}
var newUrl = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis";

Tests:

Ajax
var request = $.ajax({ type: "GET", url: newUrl, success: showResult, data: null });
Fetch
fetch(newUrl) .then( function(response) { response.json().then(function(data) { showResult(data); }); } ) .catch(function(err) { console.log('Fetch Error :-S', err); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ajax
Fetch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.124 Safari/537.36 Edg/91.0.864.64

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ajax	1916.7 Ops/sec
Fetch	936.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between making an AJAX call using jQuery (`$.ajax`) versus using the `fetch` API to make a GET request. The script preparation code sets up a function `showResult` that logs the received data to the console. The HTML preparation code includes the jQuery library.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **jQuery's $.ajax**: This is an older way of making AJAX calls in JavaScript. It uses the XMLHttpRequest object internally.
2. **Fetch API**: This is a modern API introduced in HTML5 for making HTTP requests. It provides a simpler and more concise way of making requests.

**Pros and Cons**

**$.ajax**

Pros:

* Widely supported and compatible with older browsers
* Allows for more fine-grained control over the request (e.g., headers, method)

Cons:

* Can be verbose and difficult to read
* Uses the older XMLHttpRequest object, which can be slower

**Fetch API**

Pros:

* Modern, concise syntax
* Faster and more efficient than XMLHttpRequest
* Supports promises and async/await syntax

Cons:

* Not supported in older browsers (before Chrome 5 or Firefox 19)
* Requires additional setup for certain features (e.g., CORS)

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a simplified way of making AJAX calls, among other things. It's widely used and well-maintained.

**Special JS Feature: Promises**

The Fetch API uses promises to handle asynchronous operations. A promise represents the eventual completion (or failure) of an operation. In this benchmark, the fetch request returns a promise that is then handled using `.then()` and `.catch()` methods.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code includes two functions:

* `showResult`: logs the received data to the console
* `newUrl`: defines the URL for the API request

The HTML preparation code includes the jQuery library, which is used to make the AJAX call.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to make a GET request without using either jQuery or the Fetch API, you could use other libraries like:

* Axios: a modern promise-based HTTP client
* Request: a lightweight asynchronous HTTP client

Alternatively, you can also use native JavaScript functions like `XMLHttpRequest` (if supporting older browsers) or `curl` in Node.js.

**Test Users**

This benchmark is likely targeting developers who are interested in performance optimization and want to compare the execution times of two different approaches. The test results will help them decide which approach is faster for their specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

fetch vs ajax call fixed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ajax vs Fetch

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ajax

Fetch

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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