Benchmark: Storage Perf 2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function setCookie(name, value, days) {
    var expires = "";
    if (days) {
        var date = new Date();
        date.setTime(date.getTime() + (days * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000));
        expires = "; expires=" + date.toUTCString();
    }
    document.cookie = name + "=" + (value || "") + expires + "; path=/";
}

setCookie('fdsfs', 'fdsfs');
sessionStorage.setItem('fdsfs', 'fdsfs');
localStorage.setItem('fdsfs', 'fdsfs');

Tests:

Session Storage
sessionStorage.getItem('fdsfs');
Local Storage
localStorage.getItem('fdsfs');
Cookie Storage
const getCookie = (name) => ( document.cookie.match('(^|;)\\s*' + name + '\\s*=\\s*([^;]+)')?.pop() || '' ) 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 JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark for testing the performance of different storage mechanisms: session storage, local storage, and cookie storage.

**Options Compared**

Three options are compared:

1. **Session Storage**: Retrieves a value from `sessionStorage` using `getItem('fdsfs')`.
2. **Local Storage**: Retrieves a value from `localStorage` using `getItem('fdsfs')`.
3. **Cookie Storage**: Uses a custom function to parse the cookie string and retrieve the value of 'fdsfs'.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Session Storage**:
	* Pros: Fast, lightweight, and easy to use.
	* Cons: Values are lost when the session is closed (e.g., when the tab is closed).
2. **Local Storage**:
	* Pros: More persistent than session storage, values can be stored for a longer period.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of storing and retrieving data in local storage.
3. **Cookie Storage**:
	* Pros: Provides more control over the storage mechanism and allows for custom parsing.
	* Cons: Requires manual management of cookies, which can add complexity.

**Library and Purpose**

None of the test cases use a library. However, it's worth noting that `sessionStorage` and `localStorage` are built-in DOM APIs in modern browsers, making them widely supported.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these benchmark tests.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to write similar benchmarks for other storage mechanisms, you might consider:

1. **IndexedDB**: A more advanced key-value store that provides better performance and persistence than local storage.
2. **WebStorage APIs with custom implementations**: You could create your own implementation of web storage using JavaScript, which would allow for greater customization and control over the storage mechanism.

Overall, this benchmark test provides a simple and effective way to compare the performance of different storage mechanisms in JavaScript, making it easy for developers to evaluate their choices based on real-world data.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.110 Safari/537.36 OPR/82.0.4227.58

Browser/OS: Opera 82 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Session Storage	2106010.2 Ops/sec
Local Storage	2071854.8 Ops/sec
Cookie Storage	6958.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Storage Perf 2 (version: 0)

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

Created: 2 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):