From 055fa3a49f33e20d9f6a182ed6af2c28c26c3eb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:53:19 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Updated=20=C2=B5Block=20vs.=20ABP:=20efficiency?= =?UTF-8?q?=20compared=20(markdown)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md index 01af41c..d72a14c 100644 --- a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md +++ b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Below are the average time it takes for each extension to handle a net request i ##### µBlock ![uBlock](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/ublock-obr.png) -Note that the results above are the tail end of running the complete benchmark (60 high-traffic web pages, repeated 3 times). +Note that the results above are the tail end of running the complete benchmark (60 front pages of high traffic web sites, repeated 3 times). Also noteworthy, ABP uses a cache mechanism to possibly avoid having to test a URL by trying to reuse a prior result for that same URL, which would cause ABP timing to be quite low (at the expense of memory footprint). It's unclear to me how much this mechanism kicked in with the current benchmark. µBlock doesn't use such mechanism, so whether a web page is visited repeatedly or not doesn't influence timing.