Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
memory test
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
const in memory vs let in memory
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
const in memory
const a = 4;
let in memory
let a = 4;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
const in memory
let in memory
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
10 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; ) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chromium/120.0.6099.5 Chrome/120.0.6099.5 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chromium 120 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
const in memory
433921600.0 Ops/sec
let in memory
412147872.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**Overview** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. A benchmark is a standardized test that measures the performance of a piece of code or a specific feature in JavaScript. The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each with its own Benchmark Definition and Test Name. **Benchmark Definition** The Benchmark Definition is a string that describes the code to be executed by the benchmark. In this case, there are two Benchmark Definitions: 1. `const a = 4;` 2. `let a = 4;` These definitions specify the JavaScript code that will be executed during the benchmark. **Comparison of Options** In these test cases, the options being compared are: * **`const` vs. `let`**: The two main differences between `const` and `let` are: + **Immutability**: `const` variables cannot be reassigned, while `let` variables can. + **Scope**: Both `const` and `let` variables have function scope, but `const` has block scope as well. * **Memory allocation**: The main difference between the two options is how memory is allocated: + `const` variables are stored in a constant location in memory, which means that the memory address does not change even after reassignment (although the value itself may be changed). + `let` variables are stored on the stack, which means that their memory allocation changes when they are reassigned. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: * **`const`** + Pros: - Memory safety: since `const` variables cannot be reassigned, it prevents accidental overwriting of other variables. - Performance: since the memory location does not change, constant reassignments are likely to be faster. + Cons: - Immutability can limit flexibility in certain situations. * **`let`** + Pros: - Flexibility: `let` variables can be reassigned, which can be useful in certain situations. - Performance: since the memory allocation changes with each reassignment, it may lead to performance overhead. **Library and Special JS Feature** There are no libraries or special JavaScript features being used in these test cases. The benchmark only executes basic JavaScript code using built-in syntax. **Other Considerations** When writing a benchmark like this, it's essential to consider the following: * **Consistency**: Ensure that all variables and conditions are consistent throughout the benchmark. * **Repeatability**: Make sure that the benchmark is repeatable and produces consistent results across multiple runs. * **Scalability**: Benchmarking should be able to scale up or down depending on the specific requirements of the code being tested. **Alternatives** If you were writing a similar benchmark, you could consider the following alternatives: * Use a more complex Benchmark Definition that incorporates loops, conditional statements, or other control flow constructs. * Include additional variables or conditions that affect the execution of the benchmark. * Use different JavaScript engines or environments to compare their performance. Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net is specifically designed for simple JavaScript microbenchmarks. If you need to benchmark more complex code or use special features, a different approach might be necessary.
Related benchmarks:
1000 Objects in a 10000 Object Pool; Array find vs Map get
10 Objects in a 100 Object Pool; Array find vs Map get
intersect v2b
intersect v2d
intersect v3b
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?