[iampims]

For Google it makes sense. The faster you resolve DNS, the more webpages with ads you visit. Small price to pay to increase impressions.

[mdellabitta]

DNS over HTTPS is actually a lot slower to resolve than traditional UDP DNS.

[gsich]

Yes, but only because of TCP and TLS connection overhead.

Once the connection is established, response time is similar to UDP.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Does the connection get reused?

[cbsmith]

Yes.

[gsich]

Not for long.

[tracker1]

If the browser is controlling the resolver in question, there's no reason not to hold long-running connections, or reconnecting on disconnect.

[chipperyman573]

DNS is not the bottleneck for page load speeds, especially now that 99% of the internet has images or video (even if the images are not a main focus of the webpage, such as a news article's image header)

[T-hawk]

Bandwidth bottleneck, no. Latency, time to first usable content on screen, absolutely.

[stock_toaster]

> time to first /usable/ content on screen

If we are going by time to first /usable content/, then I would blame javascript for most of the it.

[gsich]

Also consider that every shitty webpage needs to load ressources from a dozen other domains.