Benchmark: cache vs hard - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var Cache = /** @class */ (function () {
        function Cache() {
            this.internalCache = new Map();
        }
        Cache.prototype.get = function (key, cb) {
            if (this.internalCache.has(key)) {
                return this.internalCache.get(key);
            }
            var value = cb();
            this.internalCache.set(key, value);
            return value;
        };
        return Cache;
    }());

const cacheInstance = new Cache();

Tests:

with cache
cacheInstance.get('isRootDomain', () => { const origin = window.location.origin // Lazy way to count number of "." characters const matches = origin.match(/\./g); return !!(matches && matches.length === 1); });
without cache
(function() { const origin = window.location.origin // Lazy way to count number of "." characters const matches = origin.match(/\./g); return !!(matches && matches.length === 1); })();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
with cache
without cache

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 break down the provided benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: using a cache and not using a cache for a specific task. The task is to determine if a given URL is the root domain by counting the number of double quotes (`\"`) in the URL's origin.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a `Cache` class, which is used to store values retrieved from the `get()` method. The `get()` method takes two arguments: a key and a callback function (CB). If the key exists in the cache, it returns the cached value; otherwise, it calls the CB function, caches the result, and returns it.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that only JavaScript is executed for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"with cache"`**: This test case uses the `Cache` class to store and retrieve values. The callback function (CB) returns a value based on whether the URL has exactly one double quote (`\"`). The cached result is stored in the `internalCache` map.
2. **"without cache"`**: This test case does not use the `Cache` class. Instead, it executes the same callback function as before directly without caching.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches compared are:

* Using a cache to store and retrieve values ( cached approach)
* Not using a cache for the same task (non-cached approach)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Cached Approach:**

Pros:

* Faster execution times, since only unique values need to be re-computed.
* Reduced number of executions, as previously computed values are stored in memory.

Cons:

* Additional memory usage due to caching.
* Cache invalidation may occur if the CB function returns a value that needs to be recalculated.

**Non-Cached Approach:**

Pros:

* No additional memory usage, as no caching is involved.
* Simple and straightforward implementation.

Cons:

* More executions are required, as all values need to be re-computed for each execution.

**Other Considerations**

* The use of `window.location.origin` suggests that the benchmark is focused on measuring performance in a web browser environment.
* The callback function (CB) uses a lazy evaluation approach by not immediately computing the value; instead, it returns a promise or a result from executing the CB function later. This might be an optimization technique to avoid unnecessary computations.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to measure this task could include:

* Using a database or a storage layer to store and retrieve values.
* Implementing a more efficient algorithm for counting double quotes in URLs, such as using regular expressions or other optimization techniques.
* Measuring performance under different conditions, such as with varying amounts of data or network latency.

Overall, the benchmark provides an interesting comparison between two approaches: caching and non-caching. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about when to use caching in their own applications.

Related benchmarks:

cache vs hard (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: with cache vs without cache

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

with cache

without cache

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):