title: Performance between pure static html files and static html files with content loaded via JS & noSQL
body: <p>Between the following setups, which one would be performing the fastest page load for a front end user. I am only interested in the speed performance for frontend users and not the maintenance requirement for backend developers.</p>
  <ol>
  <li><p>A website that only uses static .html files, no JavaScript, no PHP, no server side programming language to render the html. Basically the origins of the internet, where each click on an internal link loads a static .html file. Each page is a pre-created physical .html file on the server.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>A website with a physical pre-created .html file, however the main content (article) on each page is fetched via Javascript from a noSQL server (Google Cloud Firestore or Fauna DB). Each click on an internal link only replaces the main content of the page via database call. The rest of the website (menu, logo, sidebar, footer) is all static and never needs to reload.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>A website with a physical pre-created .html file, but the main content (article) on each page itself is fetched via JavaScript from a local JSON file, no database, just a regular .json file in the same directory as the .html file on the same server. Each click on an internal link only replaces the main content of the page using JavaScript (probably vanilla JavaScript using fetch, unless react is somehow faster, which I doubt). The rest of the website (menu, logo, sidebar, footer) is all static and never needs to reload.</p>
  </li>
  </ol>
  <p>Of course server performance and user location does always play a role in speed tests, but for argument sake let’s assume it’s the same user visiting the same web server. Additionally in regards to noSQL, let's say it’s a fast and reliable performing 3rd party server such as Google Cloud Firestore.</p>
  <p>Which one of these setups would be the fastest? Has anyone tested this? I heard some people argue that basic static .html files are always fastest, while others argue that a static html file where the content is loaded via JavaScript is faster when navigating internal links once the initial page load is done. Both arguments make sense.</p>
  <p>Any major pros or cons for one of the mentioned setups, or past benchmarks?</p>