Which is faster on html landing page?

[TrafficYoda]

I have a question,
You know how we scr, or href sources either by
"../files/image.png"
Or
"files/image.png
or
"http://www.url.com/files/image.png"

Which is faster for html landing page to read?

 

[MxyzptlkFishStix]

Neither. It'll be the same.

 

[Shem Weissman]

../files/image.png, files/image.png, or the full URL indicates only the location of the file.

If the file isn't hosted on the same domain as your site, such as if you're using an image that's on another site, you'll have to use the full URL. Using only "/files/image.png or "../" only works if the file is located on the same server / same location.

Technically speaking, the speed the image loads will depend on the server that's hosting it. If you have a really slow server, it may load faster if the image is on another server, but that has nothing to do with the way you reference the image location...

Hope that helps.

 

[MxyzptlkFishStix]

Technically speaking, the speed the image loads will depend on the server that's hosting it. If you have a really slow server, it may load faster if the image is on another server, but that has nothing to do with the way you reference the image location...

Hope that helps.

Latency will be a bigger factor and reducing it gives page delivery/rendering the biggest bang for your buck.

 

[TrafficYoda]

Neither. It'll be the same.

../files/image.png, files/image.png, or the full URL indicates only the location of the file.

If the file isn't hosted on the same domain as your site, such as if you're using an image that's on another site, you'll have to use the full URL. Using only "/files/image.png or "../" only works if the file is located on the same server / same location.

Technically speaking, the speed the image loads will depend on the server that's hosting it. If you have a really slow server, it may load faster if the image is on another server, but that has nothing to do with the way you reference the image location...

Hope that helps.

Latency will be a bigger factor and reducing it gives page delivery/rendering the biggest bang for your buck.

Thanks so much for the replies!
I was just wondering if there was a difference, thanks for letting me know it's now

 

[ziggyfish]

There is a slight difference, the text "files/image.png" would be quicker to download, than "../files/images.png". If you have like 1,000 images this can increase the size of the page by 3kb. However if its only one or two images on the page there is really no difference between the two.

Ideally you want to remove any white space from your html and CSS (particularly if you are using spaces to indent your tags), as this will speed up the delivery of the webpage. This can be a factor on mobiles where the speed of the internet connection will impact the speed of the site.

 

[arush4491]

I think all is same not good effect.

 

[Skill Silo]

Same. More depends on where its being hosted, size of file, and other image/scripts that need to be downloaded for the page to load.

 

[Param Singh]

there is no such difference in both links use any one you like. but there are several ways to optimise your image with smaller file size. i use photoshop for the same.

 

[T J Tutor]

Yep, it's all abut file size and server capacity to deliver fast.

 

[martinsmith]

All are same, there is no difference..

 

[Merman Tiun]

In my opinion, all three of the above results in the same speed of page load.
Want faster, you have to optimize the image size by compressing the image and using image resizing code