95

I don't find get the practical difference between Cache-Control:no-store and Cache-Control:no-cache.

As far as I know, no-store means that no cache device is allowed to cache that response. In the other hand, no-cache means that no cache device is allowed to serve a cached response without validate it first with the source. But what is that validation about? Conditional get?

What if a response has no-cache, but it has no Last-Modified or ETag?

Regards.

Improve this question

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
150

See the below flow chart for better understanding enter image description here

Ref: (https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/optimizing-content-efficiency/http-caching?hl=en#cache-control)

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

4 Comments

what is cacheable by intermediate caches means?
I think services like CDN and all
I create an updated version of this decision tree check stackoverflow.com/a/49925190/3748498
@ShashankGaurav according to the video it means CDNs
31

But what is that check about?

Exactly checking Last-Modified or ETag. Client would ask server if it has new version of data using those headers and if the answer is no it will serve cached data.

Update

From RFC

no-cache If the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent caching even by caches that have been configured to return stale responses to client requests.
Improve this answer

4 Comments

and if the cached response has no Last-Modified nor ETag?
I think that in this case response will not be cached at all.
That's how I interpret RFC. (Added snippet)
Could you please update your quote to properly align with the text in this question? It helps verify what exactly you are responding to.
24

As you identified, no-cache doesn't mean there is never caching, but rather that the user agent has to always ask the server if it's OK to use what it cached. By contrast, no-store says to not even keep a copy, which means there's nothing to ask about. If you know the answer to "Can I reuse this?" is always no, you get a performance boost by skipping cache validation and saving room in the cache for other data.

Aside from performance, there is a behavior difference with browser history. HTTP 1.1 section 13.13 says that "expiration time does not apply to history mechanisms." The no-cache header describes expiration, and so doesn't apply to history mechanisms such as the back button. Thus, the user can navigate backward to a previous page with no-cache without the server being contacted.

The no-store header, on the other hand, prevents the data from being stored outside of a session, in which case it simply isn't available for a history mechanism to use. With no-store, if the user ends his session by navigating to another domain and then goes back, the only way for browser to know what to display is to get the initial page again from the server.

Here's how a Chromium issue on this topic makes the distinction:

no-cache doesn't mean "don't cache this" (that would be no-store). no-cache means don't use this for normal loads unless the resource is revalidated for freshness. History navigations are not normal loads.

Improve this answer

1 Comment

I think this is the practical difference OP asked
4
  • No-store : Client will not make any caching operation.
  • No-cache : Client will cache the response, but client will check server before using that cached data: "data has changed on the server or not?" :with help of 'If-Modified-Since' or 'If-None-Match' header.
Improve this answer

Comments

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.