Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
cached typeof
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
cached typeof vs non cached typeof
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var test = {}
Tests:
cached typeof
var to = typeof test to === 'object' to === 'object' to === 'object' to === 'object' to === 'object'
non cached typeof
typeof test === 'object' typeof test === 'object' typeof test === 'object' typeof test === 'object' typeof test === 'object'
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
cached typeof
non cached typeof
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):
Let's dive into explaining the benchmark and its results. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark named "cached typeof". The benchmark definition is as follows: * The script preparation code is `var test = {}`. This line creates an empty object `test` that will be used in the benchmark. * There is no HTML preparation code, which means this benchmark only tests the JavaScript interpreter's performance. * The benchmark has two test cases: 1. "cached typeof": This test case uses a cached property access. In JavaScript, when you use the `in` operator to check if an object has a property, it first checks if that property is a direct property of the object (i.e., not inherited from its prototype chain). If it's not, then it checks if the property exists in the object's prototype chain. This approach allows for faster lookups since it avoids traversing the prototype chain. 2. "non cached typeof": This test case uses a non-cached property access. In this case, the interpreter must traverse the prototype chain to check if the `typeof` operator returns `'object'`. **Options compared** The two options being compared are: * Cached property access (`in` operator) vs. * Non-cached property access (traversing the prototype chain using `typeof`) **Pros and Cons** **Cached Property Access (In Operator)** Pros: * Faster lookups since it avoids traversing the prototype chain * Can be optimized by the JavaScript engine to reduce the number of iterations through the object's properties Cons: * May not work correctly for objects with inherited properties or complex inheritance hierarchies * Might require additional effort from developers to ensure compatibility across different browsers and environments **Non-Cached Property Access (Traversing Prototype Chain)** Pros: * Works correctly for all objects, regardless of their prototype chain structure * Can be useful in situations where the cached approach is not suitable or desirable Cons: * Slower lookups since it requires traversing the entire prototype chain * May incur additional overhead from JavaScript engine optimizations that try to avoid this traversal **Other Considerations** When using the `in` operator for property access, it's essential to note that modern browsers and JavaScript engines have optimized this approach to reduce the number of iterations through an object's properties. However, older browsers or environments might not support these optimizations, which could lead to performance differences. In contrast, traversing the prototype chain using `typeof` is generally slower and less efficient than the cached approach. **Library** There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. The tests only rely on standard JavaScript language constructs. **Alternatives** If you're interested in comparing different approaches to property access, here are some alternatives: * Use a library like `fast-assert` or `jsperf` that provides a more comprehensive set of benchmarks and test cases. * Experiment with different browsers or environments to compare performance across various platforms. * Implement your own microbenchmarking framework using tools like ` benchmark.js` or `benchmark-mocha`. By exploring these alternatives, you can gain a deeper understanding of the trade-offs involved in optimizing JavaScript property access and make informed decisions about which approach best suits your specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
typeof vs typecast measuring
instanceof vs typeof 22
typeof vs cached typeof (2 scans)
typeof vs cached typeof (3 scans) (fixed)
typeof raw string vs const
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?