- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:42:46 -0500
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: Kyle Simpson <getify@gmail.com>, public html <public-html@w3.org>
On 12/20/10 11:17 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> Some time ago, I benchmarked (informally) the cache-load penalty by >> comparing a script that was loaded via XHR and injected versus a script that >> was loaded into cache and then re-requested. The XHR outperformed the >> load-from-cache. I can't recall exactly the figures, but I think for a >> medium-sized script (~75k) it was about 5% slower or something of that >> order. > > This is an implementation detail. There's no reason browsers couldn't > make sure to cache different things in memory if it were useful to > speed sites up. Fwiw.... maybe they are. Loading a script involves trips through the event loop, whereas dumping script text onto a page does not. That could account for a 5% difference right there. -Boris
Received on Monday, 20 December 2010 19:43:26 UTC