Performance Issues

Answers

• Claude_SchlesserAdministratorOneAll Team

  March 2017 edited March 2017

  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_GreenawaltMember

  March 2017

  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_GreenawaltMember

  March 2017

  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_SchlesserAdministratorOneAll Team

  March 2017 edited March 2017

  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_GreenawaltMember

  March 2017

  What about the multiple calls to library.js?