Benchmark: testinh - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var test = {
            da: {
                grr: 'test1'
            },
            dada: {
                brr: 'test2',
                br: null
            }
        };

var isset = function (obj, str) {
        var strArray = str.split('.');
        strArray.shift();
        
        return !strArray.some(function(item, index, leng) {
            if (index < leng.length - 1 && (obj[item] === undefined || obj[item] === null)) {
                return true;
            }
            obj = obj[item];
            
        });
    }

Tests:

testing 1
console.log(test && test.da && test.da.grr)
isset 1
console.log(isset(test, 'test.da.grr'));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
testing 1
isset 1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the provided benchmark in detail.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the execution performance of two different JavaScript code snippets on Firefox 55, running on a Mac OS X 10.11 device. The benchmark is created using MeasureThat.net, which allows users to define custom benchmarks and run them on various browsers and devices.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an object `test` with nested properties:
```javascript
var test = {
    da: {
        grr: 'test1'
    },
    dada: {
        brr: 'test2',
        br: null
    }
};
```
This object is used in both benchmark definitions.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty, indicating that no HTML markup is required for this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definitions**

There are two individual test cases defined:

1. **testing 1**
```javascript
console.log(test && test.da && test.da.grr)
```
This benchmark checks if the `grr` property exists in the `da` object of the `test` object and logs its value to the console.

2. **isset 1**
```javascript
console.log(isset(test, 'test.da.grr'))
```
This benchmark calls a custom function `isset` with two arguments: `test` and `'test.da.grr'`. The function checks if the nested property exists in the object and returns a boolean value.

**Custom Function `isset`**

The `isset` function takes an object `obj` and a string `str` as input. It splits the string into an array using the dot (`.`) character, shifts the first element (to remove it), and then checks if each subsequent property exists in the object. If any property does not exist, it returns `true`. Otherwise, it recursively calls itself on the next property.

```javascript
var strArray = str.split('.');
strArray.shift();

return !strArray.some(function(item, index, leng) {
    if (index < leng.length - 1 && (obj[item] === undefined || obj[item] === null)) {
        return true;
    }
    obj = obj[item];
});
```
**Pros and Cons of the Approaches**

1. **testing 1**: This approach uses a simple property chain lookup, which is efficient but may not work as expected if the object structure changes.
	* Pros: Simple, fast execution.
	* Cons: May fail if the object structure changes.
2. **isset 1**: This approach uses a custom function to check for the existence of nested properties, which can be more robust than the simple property chain lookup.
	* Pros: More flexible, works even if the object structure changes.
	* Cons: Requires an additional function, may be slower due to recursive calls.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks, it's essential to consider the following:

* Use meaningful variable names and clear code structure for easy understanding.
* Avoid using complex or nested logic that can lead to performance issues.
* Keep the benchmark definition concise and focused on a specific aspect of performance (e.g., execution speed).
* Consider running the benchmark multiple times to account for any variability in system load.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for writing benchmarks include:

* Using existing testing frameworks like Jest or Mocha, which provide built-in support for benchmarking.
* Writing benchmarks using a language-agnostic approach, such as using abstract syntax trees (ASTs) to analyze and optimize code.
* Utilizing hardware-accelerated benchmarks, such as those provided by WebAssembly, to measure performance on specific hardware configurations.

Related benchmarks:

testinh (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: testing 1 vs isset 1

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

testing 1

isset 1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):