Benchmark: Memory vs Local vs Session

Tests:

Local
localStorage.setItem('foo', 'bar')
Session
sessionStorage.setItem('foo', 'bar')
Control
var foo = 'bar'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Local
Session
Control

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares three different approaches to storing data in memory: `localStorage`, `sessionStorage`, and native variable storage (`var`).

**Options compared:**

* **LocalStorage**: Stores data in a user's browser session, tied to their browsing context. The data persists even after the page has closed.
* **SessionStorage**: Similar to LocalStorage, but with some key differences (more on that later). It also stores data in the user's browser session and persists even after the page has closed.
* **Native Variable Storage (`var`)**: Stores data in native JavaScript variables, which are stored in memory. This type of storage is not persisted across sessions.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **LocalStorage**:
	+ Pros:
		- Data is persisted across sessions
		- Easier to access from multiple pages or domains
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower due to security restrictions (e.g., limited access to native APIs)
		- More prone to storage leaks (accidentally storing large amounts of data)
* **SessionStorage**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster than LocalStorage, as it has fewer security restrictions
		- Still persists across sessions, but is cleared when the session ends
	+ Cons:
		- Limited access to native APIs due to security restrictions
		- May not be compatible with older browsers
* **Native Variable Storage (`var`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Fastest and most reliable option
		- No security restrictions, making it ideal for certain use cases
	+ Cons:
		- Data is lost when the session ends (or the browser closes)
		- Can be more challenging to manage data across multiple pages or domains

**Library:**

* **none**: This benchmark does not rely on any external libraries.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax:**

* None are mentioned in this specific benchmark. However, if you're interested in learning about other features and their implications for performance, feel free to ask!

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative storage mechanisms, consider the following:

* **IndexedDB**: A more advanced, client-side database that allows for structured data storage.
* **Web Storage APIs (IndexedDB-like)**: More modern and efficient than traditional LocalStorage and SessionStorage.
* **Native Storage Mechanisms**: Depending on your use case, you might need to resort to native mechanisms like file system storage or cache-based storage.

Keep in mind that the choice of storage mechanism depends on your specific requirements, performance needs, and compatibility constraints.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Local	496877.3 Ops/sec
Session	506079.9 Ops/sec
Control	1102936832.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Memory vs Local vs Session (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Local vs Session vs Control

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Local

Session

Control

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):