4 ms·

As much as I would like your statement to be true: jquery-2.0.3.js 236K jquery-2.0.3.js.gz 70K jquery-2.0.3.min.js 82K jquery-2.0.

• michaelmior 13y ago
  To be fair, this doesn't show a performance improvement, it shows a file size reduction. Of course you can assume one leads to the other, but it doesn't fully prove the point.
  • byroot 13y ago
    time curl http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.js > /dev/null real 0m0.433s time curl http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.min.js > /dev/null real 0m0.210s Is it proved now ? Edit: Off course I didn't ran these requests only once.
    • bct 13y ago
      The obvious next question is "can't you achieve the same thing with gzip": time curl http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.js > /dev/null 236k bytes real 0m0.432s time curl http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.min.js > /dev/null 83612 bytes real 0m0.323s time curl http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.js --compressed > /dev/null 87509 bytes real 0m0.273s time curl http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.min.js --compressed > /dev/null 34066 bytes real 0m0.215s I think that people should be more skeptical of the complexity introduced by things like minification, but the advantages are pretty clear, even with compression.
    • michaelmior 13y ago
      This still doesn't show that actual site performance is improved. Also, gzip is not enabled on that server, so I think it's a less realistic scenario. I'm certainly being pedantic, but I've run into similar surprises before.