Benchmark: Access to Proxy vs Object (CG)

Script Preparation code:

object = {
    value: 'data'
};
proxy = new Proxy(object, {})
proxyWithHandler = new Proxy(object, {
    get(target, prop, receiver) {
        if (prop in target) {
            return target[prop];
        }

        return "data";
    }
})

Tests:

Object
object.value
Proxy
proxy.value
Proxy.get
proxyWithHandler.value

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object
Proxy
Proxy.get

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures the performance of accessing properties of an object versus using a proxy. The benchmark tests three different approaches:

1. Direct access to the `value` property of the `object`.
2. Accessing the `value` property through a proxy created with `new Proxy(object, {})`, which is a basic implementation of a proxy that only checks if the requested property exists in the target object.
3. Accessing the `value` property through a custom proxy created with `new Proxy(object, { ... })`. This proxy overrides the default behavior to always return `"data"` instead of accessing the actual property.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Direct access**: Directly accessing the `value` property of the `object`.
2. **Proxy-based access**: Using a proxy to access the `value` property, either with the basic implementation or the custom implementation.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Direct access**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward, and efficient.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to method calls or property lookups (in some browsers).
2. **Proxy-based access (basic)**:
	* Pros: Allows for more fine-grained control over the proxy behavior, which can be useful in certain scenarios.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the creation and lookup of the proxy object.
3. **Proxy-based access (custom)**:
	* Pros: Provides a more controlled behavior by always returning `"data"` instead of accessing the actual property.
	* Cons: Introduces unnecessary complexity and may incur additional overhead.

**Library**

The benchmark uses the `Proxy` object, which is a built-in JavaScript object that allows you to create custom proxy objects. A proxy is an object that provides a controlled view into another object's properties or methods.

In this specific case, the proxy is used to control access to the `value` property of the `object`.

**Special JS feature**

There are no special JavaScript features mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Use a library like Proxy-Manager**: This library provides more advanced proxy functionality, such as support for multiple proxies and custom behavior.
2. **Implement a custom proxy using a different approach**: Instead of using the built-in `Proxy` object, you could implement your own custom proxy using JavaScript classes or functions.
3. **Use a different data structure**: Depending on the specific use case, you might consider using a different data structure, such as an array or an object with getters and setters.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity or overhead, so be sure to carefully evaluate their trade-offs before making a decision.

Related benchmarks:

Access to Proxy vs Object (CG) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object vs Proxy vs Proxy.get

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Object

Proxy

Proxy.get

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):