Benchmark: Storage Perf - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Session Storage
sessionStorage.getItem('fdsfs');
Local Storage
localStorage.getItem('fdsfs');
Cookie Storage
const getCookie = (docCookie, sKey) => decodeURIComponent(docCookie.replace(new RegExp(`(?:(?:^|.*;)\\s*${encodeURIComponent(sKey).replace(/[-.+*]/g, '\\$&')}\\s*\\=\\s*([^;]*).*$)|^.*$`), '$1')) || null; getCookie(document.cookie, 'fdsfs');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Session Storage
Local Storage
Cookie Storage

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of different storage mechanisms in JavaScript: `sessionStorage`, `localStorage`, and cookie-based storage.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three options:

1. **`sessionStorage`**: a client-side, browser-based storage mechanism that stores data locally on the user's device.
2. **`localStorage`**: a client-side, browser-based storage mechanism that stores data locally on the user's device, with a larger capacity than `sessionStorage`.
3. **Cookie-based storage**: a server-side storage mechanism that uses cookies to store and retrieve data.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`sessionStorage`**:
	* Pros: fast, lightweight, and easy to implement.
	* Cons: data is lost when the user closes their browser or clears browsing history.
2. **`localStorage`**:
	* Pros: larger capacity than `sessionStorage`, can store more complex data structures.
	* Cons: slower than `sessionStorage`, and may have security risks if not implemented properly.
3. **Cookie-based storage**:
	* Pros: can store large amounts of data, secure (if implemented correctly).
	* Cons: slower than other options due to the need for a server-side setup, and may require additional security measures.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark definitions use any libraries beyond standard JavaScript functions. However, it's worth noting that in real-world applications, you might use libraries like `sessionstorage` or `localStorage` APIs to interact with these storage mechanisms.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It simply measures the performance of accessing and retrieving data from each storage mechanism using standard JavaScript methods (e.g., `getItem`, `setItem`).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for storing data in web applications include:

1. **IndexedDB**: a client-side storage mechanism that provides more advanced data structures and querying capabilities than `localStorage`.
2. **Web Storage API Extensions**: such as Web Cryptography API, which allows encryption of stored data.
3. **Server-side storage mechanisms**: like server-side cookies or token-based authentication, which may offer additional security benefits.

Overall, the benchmark provides a simple yet informative way to compare the performance of different storage mechanisms in JavaScript, helping developers understand the trade-offs between these options when building web applications.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 17_5 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/126.0.6478.153 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile iOS 126 on iOS 17.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Session Storage	5908235.5 Ops/sec
Local Storage	5570916.5 Ops/sec
Cookie Storage	1133125.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Storage Perf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Session Storage vs Local Storage vs Cookie Storage

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Session Storage

Local Storage

Cookie Storage

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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