From acec174f2841e5b4dd3a7b554cf7f99cb0a396eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:48:13 -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 | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md index 8f0656f..70ae0cd 100644 --- a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md +++ b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ Below are the average time it takes for each extension to handle a net request i Note that the results above are the tail end of running the complete benchmark (60 URLs, repeated 3 times). -Also noteworthy, ABP uses a cache mechanism to possibly avoid having to test a URL by reusing a prior -result for that same URL, which would cause ABP timing to be quite low. 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. +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. ### Added memory footprint to web pages