Benchmark: Object.values overhead cost 1

Script Preparation code:

var myObj = {};
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    myObj['val' + i] = 'val' + i;
}
var myObjValues = Object.values(myObj);

Tests:

Call Object.values on each execution
var curObjValues = Object.values(myObj);
Use shared Object.values
var curObjValues = myObjValues;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Call Object.values on each execution
Use shared Object.values

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Use shared Object.values

32.3M/s

Call Object.values on each execution

16K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Use shared Object.values	32,293,358 Ops/sec
Call Object.values on each execution	15,579 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which is a set of instructions for creating and running a specific test case. In this case, we have two test cases:

1. "Object.values overhead cost 1"
2. "Call Object.values on each execution"

The first test case creates an object `myObj` with 1000 properties, populates it with string values, and then measures the overhead of calling `Object.values()` on this object.
2. The second test case creates a shared reference to `myObjValues`, which is the result of calling `Object.values(myObj)`, and then measures the performance of calling `Object.values` on this shared reference.

**Options compared**

In both test cases, we have two options:

1. **Call Object.values() on each execution**: This approach creates a new local variable `curObjValues` to store the result of `Object.values()` for each individual call.
2. **Use shared Object.values**: This approach creates a single reference `myObjValues` and shares it between calls.

**Pros and Cons**

**Call Object.values() on each execution**

Pros:

* Easier to understand and debug, as each call is independent and has its own scope.
* May provide more accurate results for certain use cases (e.g., when the object being modified is not the same as the one being iterated).

Cons:

* Can lead to performance overhead due to repeated function calls and variable assignments.

**Use shared Object.values**

Pros:

* Reduces overhead due to repeated function calls and variable assignments.
* Can provide better performance for large datasets, as the reference is only created once.

Cons:

* Can be more challenging to understand and debug, as the shared reference must be carefully managed to avoid side effects.
* May not be suitable for use cases where the object being iterated is different from the one being modified.

**Library: Object.values()**

`Object.values()` is a method introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES10) that returns an array of values owned by an object. It's implemented as a specialized function call, which means it has lower overhead compared to iterating over an object using `for...in` or `forEach`.

**Special JS feature: Arrow functions**

In the provided benchmark code, we see arrow functions used in both test cases:
```javascript
var curObjValues = Object.values(myObj);
```
Arrow functions were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provide a concise way to define small functions without declaring `this` explicitly. They are generally considered more readable and efficient than traditional function expressions.

**Other alternatives**

In addition to the two options compared, there may be other approaches that could be used to measure the overhead of calling `Object.values()`:

* **Using a native array**: Instead of using `Object.values()`, you could create an array with the same values using the spread operator (`[...myObj]`) or `Array.from()`. This approach would eliminate the overhead of the specialized function call.
* **Using a custom iterator**: You could implement a custom iterator for the object, which would allow you to iterate over its values without calling `Object.values()` explicitly.

Object.values overhead cost 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Call Object.values on each execution vs Use shared Object.values`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Call Object.values on each execution

Use shared Object.values

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Object.values overhead cost 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Call Object.values on each execution vs Use shared Object.values

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Call Object.values on each execution

Use shared Object.values

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Call Object.values on each execution vs Use shared Object.values`