Benchmark: Typeof GlobalThis Check

Tests:

Memoize typeof call
let cachedGlobal; function getGlobal() { if (cachedGlobal) { return cachedGlobal; } if (typeof globalThis !== 'undefined' && globalThis) { cachedGlobal = globalThis; } return cachedGlobal } for (let i = 0; i < 4000; i++) { const global = getGlobal(); }
Call typeof every time
function getGlobal() { if (typeof globalThis !== 'undefined' && globalThis) { return globalThis; } } for (let i = 0; i < 4000; i++) { const global = getGlobal(); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Memoize typeof call
Call typeof every time

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 89 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Memoize typeof call	451.8 Ops/sec
Call typeof every time	480.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark information.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The test case is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches when checking if `globalThis` (a property of the global object) exists:

1. Memoizing the check: Storing the result in a variable (`cachedGlobal`) so that it's not recalculated every time.
2. Checking every time: Without memoization, the function will always check if `globalThis` exists.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Memoized approach (Test Name: "Memoize typeof call")
* Non-memoized approach (Test Name: "Call typeof every time")

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Memoized Approach (cachedGlobal)**

Pros:

1. Faster performance: By storing the result in a variable, the check is only performed once.
2. Reduced overhead: No need to recalculate `globalThis` every time.

Cons:

1. Additional memory allocation: Storing an extra variable (`cachedGlobal`) requires memory.
2. Potential caching issues: If not implemented correctly, it can lead to incorrect results or cache thrashing.

**Non-Memoized Approach (always check)**

Pros:

1. Simple implementation: No need to manage a variable or worry about caching issues.
2. Easy understanding: The code is straightforward and easy to understand.

Cons:

1. Slower performance: Repeatedly checking `globalThis` can be slower than memoizing the result.
2. Increased overhead: More computations are required, which can lead to performance degradation.

**Library/Functionality**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library or function being used beyond the standard JavaScript functions and variables (e.g., `typeof`, `globalThis`). However, some libraries like Lodash might provide similar functionality if you were using it in your code.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax being utilized in this benchmark. It's a basic example of comparing two approaches to check if `globalThis` exists.

**Other Alternatives**

To test similar scenarios, alternative benchmarks could be created with different approaches, such as:

* Using a more complex data structure (e.g., object, array) instead of a simple variable.
* Introducing additional variables or parameters that affect the performance comparison.
* Using different browsers or devices to simulate real-world variability.

Keep in mind that the specific use case and requirements will influence the design of an alternative benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Typeof GlobalThis Check (version: 0)

Memoizing a key typeof check in high frequency

Comparing performance of: Memoize typeof call vs Call typeof every time

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Memoize typeof call

Call typeof every time

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):