Benchmark: jQuery Ajax vs Get

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.min.js"><script>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

jQuery Ajax
var request = $.ajax({ type: "GET", url: newUrl, success: showResult, data: null });
jQuery Ajax (Async)
var request = $.ajax({ type: "GET", async: true, url: newUrl, success: showResult, data: null });
jQuery Get
var request = $.get(newUrl, showResult);
jQuery Get 2
var request = $.get(newUrl).done(showResult);
jQuery getJSON
$.getJSON(newUrl, null, showResult);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery Ajax
jQuery Ajax (Async)
jQuery Get
jQuery Get 2
jQuery getJSON

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark tests the performance of different jQuery Ajax methods for making HTTP GET requests.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares four different ways to make an HTTP GET request using jQuery:

1. **jQuery Get**: Using the `$.get()` method directly.
2. **jQuery getJSON**: Using the `$.getJSON()` method, which is a variant of `$.get()` that expects JSON data.
3. **jQuery Ajax (Async)**: Using the `$.ajax()` method with asynchronous (`async: true`) and synchronous (`sync: false`) modes.
4. **jQuery Ajax**: Using the `$.ajax()` method without specifying the async mode.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **jQuery Get**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward, and well-documented.
	* Cons: May not be as flexible or powerful as other methods.
2. **jQuery getJSON**:
	* Pros: Convenient for making requests with JSON data, and it's a variant of `$.get()`.
	* Cons: May be slower than using `$.ajax()` directly, since it involves an additional step to parse the response data.
3. **jQuery Ajax (Async)**:
	* Pros: Asynchronous mode allows for non-blocking requests, which can improve performance in certain scenarios.
	* Cons: Requires manual handling of callbacks and may be less readable than synchronous methods.
4. **jQuery Ajax**:
	* Pros: Provides a flexible way to make HTTP requests with custom headers, data, and callbacks.
	* Cons: May require more setup and configuration compared to other methods.

**Library Descriptions**

The benchmark uses jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library for making HTTP requests, manipulating the DOM, and handling events. It provides a set of convenience functions like `$.get()`, `$.ajax()`, and `$.getJSON()` that simplify common tasks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark, aside from using jQuery's convenience functions.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these methods, consider the following factors:

* **Performance**: If you need to make a large number of requests, asynchronous mode might be beneficial. However, for simple cases, synchronous methods like `$.get()` or `$.ajax()` without async mode might be sufficient.
* **Readability and maintainability**: Choose a method that balances performance with readability. If you need to handle complex data or custom headers, `$.ajax()` might be a better choice.
* **Browser compatibility**: Make sure the chosen method is compatible with your target browsers.

**Alternatives**

If you don't want to use jQuery, you can also make HTTP requests using native JavaScript APIs like:

1. **XMLHttpRequest**: A traditional API for making HTTP requests.
2. **Fetch API**: A modern API introduced in ECMAScript 2015 that provides a simpler way to make HTTP requests.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more setup and configuration compared to jQuery's convenience functions.

In summary, the benchmark compares four different ways to make HTTP GET requests using jQuery, highlighting their pros and cons. When choosing between these methods, consider performance, readability, maintainability, browser compatibility, and any specific requirements for your use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:59.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/59.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 59 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery Ajax	1017.9 Ops/sec
jQuery Ajax (Async)	1513.6 Ops/sec
jQuery Get	1265.9 Ops/sec
jQuery Get 2	1577.2 Ops/sec
jQuery getJSON	1726.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery Ajax vs Get (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: jQuery Ajax vs jQuery Ajax (Async) vs jQuery Get vs jQuery Get 2 vs jQuery getJSON

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

jQuery Ajax

jQuery Ajax (Async)

jQuery Get

jQuery Get 2

jQuery getJSON

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):