Benchmark: for-in: cached vs non-cached

Script Preparation code:

class Second {
    dict = {}
    loopCached() {
        const dict = this.dict;
        for (const key in dict) {
            if (dict.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
                cb(dict[key], key);
            }
        }
    }
    loop() {
        for (const key in this.dict) {
            if (this.dict.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
                cb(this.dict[key], key);
            }
        }
    }
}

window.second = new Second();

for (let i = 0; i < 2e4; i++) {
    second["dict"][i] = i
}

const cb = (k, v) => {
    return v % 2
}

Tests:

Non Cached
second.loop()
Cached
second.loopCached()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Non Cached
Cached

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case for comparing the performance difference between two approaches to iterating over an object: caching and non-caching.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition is a script that creates an instance of the `Second` class, which has two methods: `loopCached()` and `loop()`. These methods iterate over the `dict` property using the `for...in` loop, but with a twist. The `loopCached()` method caches the result of the iteration in a local variable, while the `loop()` method does not.

**Options being compared:**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Cached**: This approach uses the `for...in` loop and caches the result of the iteration using a local variable.
2. **Non-Cached**: This approach also uses the `for...in` loop, but without caching the result.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Cached**:
	+ Pros:
		- May be faster due to reduced number of iterations (only once per cache entry)
		- Can improve performance by reducing unnecessary computations
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more memory for caching purposes
		- May introduce additional overhead due to cache management
* **Non-Cached**:
	+ Pros:
		- No additional memory requirements or overhead
		- Simple and straightforward approach
	+ Cons:
		- May perform slower due to repeated iterations

**Library:**

The `Second` class uses a simple object property `dict` to store data. The purpose of this library is to provide a minimalistic example for testing the performance difference between caching and non-caching approaches.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

This benchmark test case does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only employs basic ECMAScript syntax and features, making it accessible to a wide range of software engineers.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **Using `for...of` loop**: This would eliminate the need for caching and could potentially be faster.
* **Using `Object.keys()` method**: Instead of using `for...in`, this approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to iterate over the object properties.
* **Using a library like Lodash**: This might introduce additional overhead, but could provide a more concise and readable way to perform iterations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not necessarily improve performance or provide meaningful results for this specific benchmark test case. It's essential to carefully evaluate the trade-offs and potential impact on performance before experimenting with different approaches.

Related benchmarks:

for-in: cached vs non-cached (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Non Cached vs Cached

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Non Cached

Cached

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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