Benchmark: JQuery Mobile 1.1.2 Load Speed On Jquery 1.12.4 3-cases

HTML Preparation code:

<head>
    <title>Hello World!</title> 
  	<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js'></script>
	<script src='//code.jquery.com/mobile/1.1.2/jquery.mobile-1.1.2.min.js'></script>
 	<link rel="stylesheet" href="//code.jquery.com/mobile/1.2.1/jquery.mobile-1.2.1.min.css" />
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> 
</head>
<body> 
<div data-role="page">
    <div data-role="header">
        <h1>Curonsys</h1>
    </div>
    <div data-role="content"> 
        <p>Hello world</p>
    </div>
  	<ul id="mylist" data-role="listview" data-inset="true" data-theme="d" data-divider-theme="e" data-count-theme="b">
		<li data-role="list-divider">Divider</li>
		<li><a href="#">Inbox <span class="ui-li-count">12</span></a></li>
		<li><a href="#">Outbox <span class="ui-li-count">0</span></a></li>
		<li><a href="#">Sent <span class="ui-li-count">328</span></a></li>
      	<input type="button" value="http://curonsys.com" id="curo" class="myButton" data-inline="true"/>
    	<input type="button" value="http://naver.com" id="nav" class="myButton" data-inline="true"/>
	</ul>
</div>
</body>

Script Preparation code:

var dirName;
var isRel;
var parseLocation;

Tests:

path
$(document).ready(function() { dirName = $.mobile.path.get($('curo').attr('value')); });
url
$(document).ready(function() { isRel = $.mobile.path.isRelativeUrl($('nav').attr('value')); });
parseLocation
$(document).ready(function() { parseLocation = $.mobile.path.parseLocation(); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
path
url
parseLocation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of jQuery Mobile, specifically the $.mobile.path functions: `$.mobile.path.get()`, `$.mobile.path.isRelativeUrl()`, and `$.mobile.path.parseLocation()`.

**Test Cases**

There are three individual test cases:

1. **`path`**: This test case checks the execution speed of the `$.mobile.path.get()` function, which parses a URL path to extract the directory name.
2. **`url`**: This test case measures the performance of the `$.mobile.path.isRelativeUrl()` function, which determines whether a given URL is relative or absolute.
3. **`parseLocation`**: This test case benchmarks the execution speed of the `$.mobile.path.parseLocation()` function, which parses a URL string and extracts its components.

**Options Compared**

In each test case, there are likely multiple options being compared to measure their performance differences:

* For `path`, the options might include:
	+ Parsing a relative URL vs. an absolute URL
	+ Using different algorithms or data structures for path parsing
	+ Comparing the execution speed of different programming languages or implementations (e.g., JavaScript vs. C++)
* For `url`, the options might include:
	+ Checking if the URL is relative, absolute, or both
	+ Using different methods to determine the URL type (e.g., parsing vs. regular expressions)
	+ Comparing the performance of different libraries or frameworks for URL manipulation
* For `parseLocation`, the options might include:
	+ Parsing a URL string with and without whitespace or special characters
	+ Using different algorithms or data structures for URL parsing
	+ Comparing the execution speed of different programming languages or implementations

**Pros and Cons**

The pros and cons of each approach depend on the specific use case and requirements. Here are some general observations:

* **Parsing URLs**: When dealing with URLs, it's essential to consider factors like path resolution, query string parsing, and fragment handling. Different approaches can have varying degrees of accuracy, performance, and feature completeness.
	+ Pros: Efficient parsing, robust error handling, and comprehensive feature set
	+ Cons: Resource-intensive, may introduce additional complexity, and requires careful tuning for optimal performance
* **Relative vs. Absolute URLs**: Depending on the context, relative or absolute URLs might be more suitable. Different approaches can handle these cases differently.
	+ Pros: Flexible, adaptable to changing requirements, and reduces overhead
	+ Cons: May lead to ambiguous or incorrect results if not handled carefully
* **Algorithms and Data Structures**: The choice of algorithm or data structure can significantly impact performance. Different approaches might prioritize accuracy, completeness, or speed.
	+ Pros: Efficient, accurate, or comprehensive, depending on the focus
	+ Cons: May compromise on other aspects, such as robustness or maintainability

**Library and Purpose**

The library used in this benchmark is jQuery Mobile. It provides a set of APIs for building mobile web applications, including functionality like navigation, input handling, and styling.

* **$.mobile.path**: This module provides functions for working with URLs and paths, including parsing, resolving, and manipulating them.

**Other Considerations**

When dealing with URL-related benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors like:

* **Browser compatibility**: Different browsers may have varying levels of support for specific URL features or APIs.
* **Platform-specific considerations**: Mobile devices, in particular, may require special handling due to their unique environments and constraints.
* **Error handling and robustness**: Efficient error handling and robustness are crucial when working with URLs, as incorrect or malformed input can lead to unexpected behavior.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to MeasureThat.net or want to explore other tools for benchmarking JavaScript performance:

* **Benchmark.js**: A fast, lightweight, and extensible benchmarking library for Node.js.
* **jsbench**: A simple, intuitive, and feature-rich benchmarking tool for JavaScript.
* **perfherder**: A scalable, distributed benchmarking system for web applications.

These alternatives can help you create more comprehensive benchmarks, explore different optimization strategies, or simply compare the performance of various libraries or implementations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; SM-N960N) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.157 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 74 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
path	248532.1 Ops/sec
url	296413.4 Ops/sec
parseLocation	264881.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JQuery Mobile 1.1.2 Load Speed On Jquery 1.12.4 3-cases (version: 0)

jinungcho20190628

Comparing performance of: path vs url vs parseLocation

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

path

url

parseLocation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):