Benchmark: Caching length property vs getting it each time in the loop

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var count = 1000;
for(var i = 0; i<count; i++)
{
  arr.push(i);
}

Tests:

Cache length
var arrLen = arr.length; var sum = 0; for (var i = 0; i < arrLen; i++){ sum = arr[i]; }
Do not cache
var sum = 0; for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++){ sum = arr[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Cache length
Do not cache

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 21 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/26.4 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 26 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Cache length	92817.5 Ops/sec
Do not cache	35979.3 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 explanation of the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for accessing an array length property: caching it in a variable versus getting it directly within the loop.

In summary, the benchmark defines two test cases:

1. "Cache length" ( Benchmark Definition ): This test case caches the length of the array in a variable (`var arrLen = arr.length;`) and then uses this cached value to iterate over the array.
2. "Do not cache" ( Benchmark Definition ): This test case does not cache the array length property and instead gets it directly within the loop (`for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++){ ... }`).

**Options Comparison**

The two approaches have different pros and cons:

**Caching (Cache length)**

Pros:

* Reduced overhead of getting the array length property multiple times
* Potential performance gain due to reduced number of property lookups

Cons:

* Additional memory allocation for storing the cached value
* Possible cache thrashing if the array size changes frequently

**Not Caching (Do not cache)**

Pros:

* No additional memory allocation required
* Simpler code with fewer variables

Cons:

* Increased overhead due to repeated property lookups
* Potential performance penalty due to increased number of property accesses

**Library/Function Considerations**

There is no explicit library or function mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript environments (e.g., V8) might optimize array length properties using a technique called "inlining" or "register allocation," which can affect the performance characteristics of these test cases.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition. The code only uses standard JavaScript syntax and conventions.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternative approaches to compare might include:

* Using `Array.prototype.length` instead of `arr.length`
* Using a different data structure (e.g., sparse arrays) that affects array length property behavior
* Implementing custom array length caching mechanisms using techniques like memoization or caching libraries
* Measuring performance with different JavaScript engines, browsers, or Node.js versions

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements. The benchmark definition provided is a simple comparison of two approaches, but there are many other factors to consider when optimizing array length property access.

Related benchmarks:

Caching length property vs getting it each time in the loop (version: 1)

save length of the array in the variable vs get it the loop

Comparing performance of: Cache length vs Do not cache

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Cache length

Do not cache

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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