Peterbe.com

Recently I've been playing with the content of MDN as a whole. MDN has ~140k documents in its Wiki. About ~70k of them are redirects which is the result of many years of switching tech and switching information architecture and at the same time being good Internet citizens and avoiding 404s. So, out of the ~70k documents, how do they spread? To answer that I wrote a Python script that evaluates size as a matter of the sum of all the files in sub-trees including pictures.

Here are the screenshots:

All locales

Specifically en-US

The code that puts this together uses Toast UI which seems cool but I didn't spend much time worrying about how to use it.

Be warned! Opening this link will make your browser sweat: https://8mw9v.csb.app/

You can fork it here: https://codesandbox.io/s/zen-swirles-8mw9v

tl;dr; The previous (React) total JavaScript bundle size was: 36.2K Brotli compressed. The new (Preact) JavaScript bundle size was: 5.9K. I.e. 6 times smaller. Also, it appears to load faster in WebPageTest.

I have this page that is a Django server-side rendered page that has on it a form that looks something like this:

<div id="root">  
  <form action="https://songsear.ch/q/">  
    <input type="search" name="term" placeholder="Type your search here..." />
    <button>Search</button>
  </form>  
</div>

It's a simple search form. But, to make it a bit better for users, I wrote a React widget that renders, into this document.querySelector('#root'), a near-identical <form> but with autocomplete functionality that displays suggestions as you type.

Anyway, I built that React bundle using create-react-app. I use the yarn run build command that generates...

• css/main.83463791.chunk.css - 1.4K
• js/main.ec6364ab.chunk.js - 9.0K (gzip 2.8K, br 2.5K)
• js/runtime~main.a8a9905a.js - 1.5K (gzip 754B, br 688B)
• js/2.b944397d.chunk.js - 119K (gzip 36K, br 33K)

Then, in Python, a piece of post-processing code copies the files from the build/static/ directory and inserts it into the rendered HTML file. The CSS gets injected as an inline <style> tag.

It's a simple little widget. No need for any service-workers or react-router or any global state stuff. (Actually, it only has 1 single runtime dependency outside the framework) I thought, how about moving this to Preact?

In comes preact-cli

The app used a couple of React hooks but they were easy to transform into class components. Now I just needed to run:

npx preact create --yarn widget name-of-my-preact-project
cd name-of-my-preact-project
mkdir src
cp ../name-of-React-project/src/App.js src/
code src/App.js

Then, I slowly moved over the src/App.js from the create-react-app project and slowly by slowly I did the various little things that you need to do. For example, to learn to build with preact build --no-prerender --no-service-worker and how I can override the default template.

Long story short, the new built bundles look like this:

• style.82edf.css - 1.4K
• bundle.d91f9.js - 18K (gzip 6.4K, br 5.9K)
• polyfills.9168d.js - 4.5K (gzip 1.8K, br 1.6K)

(The polyfills.9168d.js gets injected as a script tag if window.fetch is falsy)

Unfortunately, when I did the move from React to Preact I did make some small fixes. Doing the "migration" I noticed a block of code that was never used so that gives the build bundle from Preact a slight advantage. But I think it's nominal.

In conclusion: The previous total JavaScript bundle size was: 36.2K (Brotli compressed). The new JavaScript bundle size was: 5.9K (Brotli compressed). I.e. 6 times smaller. But if you worry about the total amount of JavaScript to parse and execute, the size difference uncompressed was 129K vs. 18K. I.e. 7 times smaller. I can only speculate but I do suspect you need less CPU/battery to process 18K instead of 129K if CPU/batter matters more (or closer to) than network I/O.

Rendering speed difference

Rendering speed is so darn hard to measure on the web because the app is so small. Plus, there's so much else going on that matters.

However, using WebPageTest I can do a visual comparison with the "Mobile - Slow 3G" preset. It'll be a somewhat decent measurement of the total time of downloading, parsing and executing. Thing is, the server-side rended HTML form has a button. But the React/Preact widget that takes over the DOM hides that submit button. So, using the screenshots that WebPageTest provides, I can deduce that the Preact widget completes 0.8 seconds faster than the React widget. (I.e. instead of 4.4s it became 3.9s)

Truth be told, I'm not sure how predictable or reproducible is. I ran that WebPageTest visual comparison more than once and the results can vary significantly. I'm not even sure which run I'm referring to here (in the screenshot) but the React widget version was never faster.

Conclusion and thoughts

Unsurprisingly, Preact is smaller because you simply get less from that framework. E.g. synthetic events. I was lucky. My app uses onChange which I could easily "migrate" to onInput and I managed to get it to work pretty easily. I'm glad the widget app was so small and that I don't depend on any React specific third-party dependencies.

But! In WebPageTest Visual Comparison it was on "Mobile - Slow 3G" which only represents a small portion of the traffic. Mobile is a huge portion of the traffic but "Slow 3G" is not. When you do a Desktop comparison the difference is roughtly 0.1s.

Also, in total, that page is made up of 3 major elements

1. The server-side rendered HTML
2. The progressive JavaScript widget (what this blog post is about)
3. A piece of JavaScript initiated banner ad

That HTML controls the "First Meaningful Paint" which takes 3 seconds. And the whole shebang, including the banner ad, takes a total of about 9s. So, all this work of rewriting a React app to Preact saved me 0.8s out of the total of 9s.

Web performance is hard and complicated. Every little counts, but keep your eye on the big ticket items assuming there's something you can do about them.

At the time of writing, preact-cli uses Preact 8.2 and I'm eager to see how Preact X feels. Apparently, since April 2019, it's in beta. Looking forward to giving it a try!

I use localhost:3000 for a lot of different projects. It's the default port on create-react-app's dev server. The browser profile remains but projects come and go. There's a lot of old stuff in there that I have no longer any memory of adding.

Working in a recent single page app, I tried to use localStorage as a cache for some XHR requests and got: DOMException: "The quota has been exceeded.".
Wat?! I'm only trying to store a ~250KB JSON string. Surely that's far away from the mythical 5MB limit. Do I really have to lzw compress the string in and out to save room and pay for it in CPU cycles?

Better yet, find out what junk I still have in there.

Paste this into your Web Console (it's safe as milk):

Object.entries(localStorage).forEach(([k,v]) => console.log(k.padEnd(50), v.length, (v.length / 1024).toFixed(1) + 'KB'))

The output looks something like this:

Or, sorted and filtered a bit:

Object.entries(localStorage).sort((a, b) => b[1].length -a[1].length).slice(0,5).forEach(
([k,v]) => console.log(k.padEnd(50), v.length, (v.length / 1024).toFixed(1) + 'KB'));

Looks like this:

And for the record, summed total in kilobytes:

(Object.values(localStorage).map(x => x.length).reduce((a, b) => a + b) / 1024).toFixed(1) + 'KB';

Wrapping up

Seems my Firefox browser's localStorage limit is still 5MB.

Also, you can do the loop using localStorage.length and localStorage.key(n) and localStorage.getItem(localStorage.key(n)).length but using Object.entries(localStorage) seems neater.

I guess this means I can still use localStorage in my app. It seems I just need to localStorage.removeItem('massive-list:items') which sounds like an experiment, from eons ago, for seeing how much I can stuff in there.

tl;dr; The main JavaScript bundle goes from 29KB to 6KB by switching from JQuery to Cash. Both with Brotli compression.

In Web Performance, every byte counts. Downloading less stuff means faster network operations but for JavaScript it also means less to parse and execute. This site used use JQuery 3.4.1 but now uses Cash 4.1.2. It requires some changes to how you use $ and most noticeable is the lack of animations and $.ajax.

I still stand by the $ function. It's great when you have a regular (static) website that isn't a single page app but still needs a little bit of interactive JavaScript functionality. On this site, I use it for making the commenting work and some various navigation/header stuff.

Switching to Cash means you have to stop doing things like $.getJSON() and $('.classname').fadeIn(400) which, in a sense, gives Cash an unfair advantage because those bits take up a large portion of the bundle size. Yes, there is a custom build of jQuery without those but check out this size comparison:

Bundle	Uncompressed (bytes)	Gzipped (bytes)
jQuery 3.4.1	88,145	30,739
jQuery 3.4.1 Slim	71,037	24,403
Cash 4.1.2	14,818	5,167

I still needed a fadeIn function, which I was relying on from jQuery, but to remedy that I just copied one of these from youmightnotneedjquery.com. It would be better to not do that an use a CSS transform instead but, well, I'm only human.

Before: with jQuery

Another thing you'll need to replace is to switch from $.ajax to fetch but there are good polyfills but I haven't bothered with polyfills because the tiny percentage of visitors I have, without fetch support still get a working site but can't post comments.

I was contemplating doing what GitHub did in 2018 which was to replace jQuery with real vanilla JavaScript code but it didn't seem worth it now that Cash is only 5KB (gzipped) and it's an actively maintained project too.

Before: with jQuery

After: with Cash

Back in 2012, I did an experiment to compare if and/or how much faster WebSockets are compared to AJAX (aka. XHR). It would be a "protocol benchmark" to see which way was faster to schlep data back and forth between a server and a browser in total. The conclusion of that experiment was that WebSockets were faster but when you take latency into account, the difference was minimal. Considering the added "complexities" of WebSockets (keeping connections, results don't come where the request was made, etc.) it's not worth it.

But, 7 years later browsers are very different. Almost all browsers that support JavaScript also support WebSockets. HTTP/2 might make things better too. And perhaps the WebSocket protocol is just better implemented in the browsers. Who knows? An experiment knows.

So I made a new experiment with similar tech. The gist of the code is best explained with some code:

// Inside App.js

loopXHR = async count => {
  const res = await fetch(`/xhr?count=${count}`);
  const data = await res.json();
  const nextCount = data.count;
  if (nextCount) {
    this.loopXHR(nextCount);
  } else {
    this.endXHR();
  }
};

Basically, pick a big number (e.g. 100) and send that integer to the server which does this:

# Inside app.py 

# from the the GET querystring "?count=123"
count = self.get_argument("count")   
data = {"count": int(count) - 1}
self.write(json.dumps(data))

So the browser keeps sending the number back to the server that decrements it and when the server returns 0 the loop ends and you look how long the whole thing took.

Try It

The code is here: https://github.com/peterbe/sockshootout2019

And the demo app is here: https://sockshootout.app (Just press "Start!", wait and press it 2 or 3 more times)

Location, location, location

What matters is the geographical distance between you and the server. The server used in this experiment is in New York, USA.

What you'll find is that the closer you are to the server (lower latency) the better WebSocket performs. Here's what mine looks like:

My result between South Carolina, USA and New York, USA

Now, when I run the whole experiment all on my laptop the results look very different:

Running all locally

I don't have a screenshot for it but a friend of mine ran this from his location in Perth, Australia. There was no difference. If any difference it was "noise".

Same Conclusion?

Yes, latency matters most. The technique, for the benefit of performance, doesn't matter much.

No matter how fancy you're trying to be, what matters is the path the bytes have to travel. Or rather, the distance the bytes have to travel. If you're far away a large majority of the total time is sending and receiving the data. Not the time it takes the browser (or the server) to process it.

However, suppose you do have all your potential clients physically near the server, it might be beneficial to use WebSockets.

Thoughts and Conclusions

My original thought was to use WebSockets instead of XHR for an autocomplete widget. At almost every keystroke, you send it to the server and as search results come in, you update the search result display. Things like that need to be fast and "snappy". But that's not where WebSockets shine. They shine in their ability to actively await results without having a loop that periodically pulls. There's nothing wrong with WebSocket and it has its brilliant use cases.

In summary, don't bother just to get a single-digit percentage performance increase if the complexity of the code and infrastructure is non-trivial. Keep building cool stuff with WebSockets but if you expect one result per action, XHR is good enough.

Bonus

The experiment app does collect everyone's results (just the timings and IP) and I hope to find the time to process this and build graph a correlating the geographical distance compared to the difference between the two techniques. Watch this space!

By the way, if you do plan on writing some WebSocket implementation code I highly recommend Sockette. It's solid and easy to use.

Before I commit to KeyCDN for my little blog I wanted to check if CloudFront is better. Why? Because I already have an AWS account set up, familiar with boto3, it's what we use for work, and it's AWS so it's usually pretty good stuff. As an attractive bonus, CloudFront has 44 edge locations (KeyCDN 34).

Price-wise it's hard to compare because the AWS CloudFront pricing page is hard to read because the costs are broken up by regions. KeyCDN themselves claim KeyCDN is about 2x cheaper than CloudFront. This seems to be true if you look at cdnoverview.com's comparison too. CloudFront seems to have more extra specific costs. For example, with AWS CloudFront you have to pay to invalidate the cache whereas that's free for KeyCDN.

I also ran a little global latency test comparing the two using Hyperping using 7 global regions. The results are as follows:

KeyCDN on Hyperping.io

CloudFront on Hyperping.io

Region	KeyCDN	CloudFront	Winner
London	27 ms	36 ms	KeyCDN
San Francisco	29 ms	46 ms	KeyCDN
Frankfurt	47 ms	1001 ms	KeyCDN
New York City	52 ms	68 ms	KeyCDN
São Paulo	105 ms	162 ms	KeyCDN
Sydney	162 ms	131 ms	CloudFront
Mumbai	254 ms	76 ms	CloudFront

Take these with a pinch of salt because it's only an average for the last 1 hour. Let's agree that they both faster than your regular Nginx server in a single location.

By the way, both KeyCDN and CloudFront support Brotli compression. For CloudFront, this was added in July 2018 and if your origin can serve according to Content-Encoding you simply tell CloudFront to cache based on that header.

Although I've never tried it CloudFront does have an API for doing cache invalidation (aka. purging) and you can use boto3 to do it but I've never tried it. For KeyCDN here's how you do cache invalidation with the python-keycdn-api:

api = keycdn.Api(settings.KEYCDN_API_KEY)
call = "zones/purgeurl/{}.json".format(settings.KEYCDN_ZONE_ID)
all_urls = [
    'origin.example.com/static/foo.css',
    'origin.example.com/static/foo.cssbr',
    'origin.example.com/images/foo.jpg',
]
params = {"urls": all_urls}
response = api.delete(call, params)
print(response)

I'm not in love with that API but I know it issues the invalidation fast whereas with CloudFront I heard it takes a while to take effect.