Performance Issues

Robert_Greenawalt

We're seeing performance related issues from the oneall calls (see image). Is this normal and expected? I'm also not sure why library.js is getting called 3 times too. Is that to be expected? Note there are somewhat different issues between the 2 URLs. Is there anything that can be done to improve this performance?

Claude_Schlesser

Hi Robert,

all our JavaScripts are loaded asynchronously, so their loading time will have no influence on the overall loading time of the page. The tool that you have been using probably does not handle asynchronously loaded JavaScript and loads it synchronously. This however does not reflect on how it's actually being loaded in browsers.

You can also see that two out of the three library.js files have a size of 0. This means that they have been loaded from cache. In this case there is no request being made to our servers and there is no delay.

Can you give me a link to the corresponding page? In this case I can check why the library.js was loaded multiple times.

Robert_Greenawalt

You can see the full results for the page www.curriki.org here: https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/cCoteP/http://www.curriki.org and you can see something similar under the 'Waterfall' tab here: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.curriki.org/XDob8U2f. I'm not an expert at these charts, but at first glance it looks like up to .5 second of load time is added by oneall.

Robert_Greenawalt

We ran pingdom with and without the script and this confirmed my suspicions regarding performance impact. Here is performance without the script https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/bqFkM7/curriki.org



Load time
1.09 s
Faster than
88 %
of tested sites
Page size
1.3 MB
Requests
99
Tested from
Dallas
on Mar 27 at 14:04


Performance grade
B 87
Load time
1.29 s
Faster than
84 %
of tested sites
Page size
1.3 MB
Requests
100
Tested from
Dallas
on Mar 27 at 16:27

and with the script

https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/dd2TAn/curriki.org



Performance grade
B 87
Load time
1.52 s
Faster than
80 %
of tested sites
Page size
1.4 MB
Requests
110
Tested from
Dallas
on Mar 27 at 14:10

So, we're seeing a .23 - .43 second performance impact when using your script.

Am I missing something? Or, is there anything you can do to improve the script's performance, as this is a pretty big hit.

Thanks.

Bob

Claude_Schlesser

Hi Bob,

all resources are cached, so the 0.23 - 0.43 seconds increase (which to be honest is not a lot) will occur only once and the user will barely notice it. When the user is going to the next page, the resources are delivered from cache and it will take 0 seconds.

I will forward your concerns to our developers, they will have a closer look!

Robert_Greenawalt

What about the multiple calls to library.js?