Benchmark: Redundant Lookups

Script Preparation code:

var testObject = {
  'reallyLongStringsProbably': 0,
  'anotherReallyLongStringProbably': 1,
  'shortString1': 2,
  'shortString2': 3,
  'shortString3': 4,
  'shortString4': 5,
  'shortString5': 6,
  'shortString6': 7,
  'shortString7': 8,
  'moreLongStringsThatArePrettyLong': 9,
  'moreLongStringsThatArePrettyLong2': 10,
  'moreLongStringsThatArePrettyLong3': 11,
  'moreLongStringsThatArePrettyLong4': 12,
};

function cacheLookupRedundant(name) {
  if (!testObject[name]) {
    testObject[name] = 13;
  }
  return testObject[name];
}

function cacheLookupNotRedundant(name) {
  let value = testObject[name];
  if (!value) {
    value = 13;
    testObject[name] = value;
  }
  return value;
}

Tests:

Redundant
cacheLookupRedundant('someStringThatsAParameter');
Not Redundant
cacheLookupNotRedundant('someStringThatsAParameter');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Redundant
Not Redundant

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Redundant	145407664.0 Ops/sec
Not Redundant	158383056.0 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 explain what is being tested, along with the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided benchmark definition represents two JavaScript functions: `cacheLookupRedundant` and `cacheLookupNotRedundant`. The purpose of these functions appears to be testing caching behavior in a JavaScript engine.

**cacheLookupRedundant**

This function takes a string parameter `name` and returns the value associated with that key in an object `testObject`. If the key does not exist, it assigns a default value (13) to the key. The function then returns the cached value. However, if the value is still null or undefined, it reassigns the value to 13 and updates the testObject.

**cacheLookupNotRedundant**

This function takes a string parameter `name` and returns the value associated with that key in an object `testObject`. If the key does not exist, it creates a new entry with the default value (13) and then returns that value. This approach avoids reassigning values to the testObject.

**Options Comparison**

The two functions differ in their caching behavior:

*   **cacheLookupRedundant**: This function caches values even if they are still null or undefined, which means it can lead to unnecessary reassignments. However, this approach may be beneficial for certain use cases where reassignment is not a concern.
*   **cacheLookupNotRedundant**: This function avoids reassigning values to the testObject, which ensures that the cache remains consistent and accurate.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **cacheLookupRedundant**:
    *   Pros: May be beneficial for certain use cases where reassignment is not a concern.
    *   Cons: Can lead to unnecessary reassignments and potential inconsistencies in the cache.
*   **cacheLookupNotRedundant**:
    *   Pros: Ensures that the cache remains consistent and accurate by avoiding reassignments.
    *   Cons: May result in slower performance due to the need for additional checks.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON, but it appears that the `testObject` variable is being used as a proxy object to mimic caching behavior. If you were to create a separate library or module for this benchmark, it might include functions for working with objects and caching values.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided JSON. However, the use of closures (the `testObject` variable is defined outside the scope of the functions) and object-oriented programming concepts can be beneficial for understanding this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to rewrite this benchmark using a different approach, here are some alternatives:

*   Use a different caching library or module, such as LRU Cache or Redis.
*   Implement the caching behavior manually without relying on an existing library or module.
*   Utilize Web Workers to parallelize the execution of the test cases and measure their performance.

These alternatives might provide different results or offer new insights into the performance characteristics of your JavaScript engine.

Related benchmarks:

Redundant Lookups (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Redundant vs Not Redundant

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Redundant

Not Redundant

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):