Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
typeof vs cached typeof (3 scans)
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
uncached typeof vs cached typeof
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var obj = {};
Tests:
uncached typeof
for (let n = 0; n < 1000; n++) { if (typeof obj === 'object') { if (typeof obj === 'object') { if (typeof obj === 'object') { return true; } } } }
cached typeof
for (let n = 0; n < 1000; n++) { const isObject = typeof obj; if (isObject) { if (isObject) { if (typeof obj === 'object') { return true; } } } }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
uncached typeof
cached typeof
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 126 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=532687" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
cached typeof
13.6M/s
uncached typeof
9.3M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
cached typeof
13,586,606 Ops/sec
uncached typeof
9,312,596 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and understand what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark compares two approaches to check if an object is an instance of another object using the `typeof` operator: `uncached typeof` and `cached typeof`. The goal is to measure which approach is faster, as indicated by the "ExecutionsPerSecond" metric in the latest benchmark result. **Options Compared** The benchmark tests two options: 1. **Uncached typeof**: This approach uses a direct call to `typeof obj`, without any caching mechanism. 2. **Cached typeof**: This approach uses a cached result for the `typeof` operator, which is assumed to be stored in some hidden context (not explicitly shown in the benchmark). **Pros and Cons** * **Uncached typeof**: + Pros: Simple and straightforward implementation. + Cons: Each call to `typeof obj` performs an expensive operation, leading to slower performance. * **Cached typeof**: + Pros: Can potentially reduce the number of operations performed by caching the result. + Cons: Requires additional setup and management of the cache, which can add complexity. **Library Usage** The benchmark uses a library called `typeof` (not explicitly mentioned in the JSON), which is assumed to provide an implementation for the `typeof` operator. The exact details of this library are not shown in the benchmark. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There's no explicit mention of special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of the `let` keyword with a block scope (in the `for` loop) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. **Alternatives** Other approaches to check if an object is an instance of another object include: 1. **Using instanceof**: This method is more straightforward and efficient than using the `typeof` operator. 2. **Using a library like Lodash**: Lodash provides a function called `isPlainObject()` that can be used to check if an object is an instance of another object. Here's an example implementation using `instanceof`: ```javascript function isObject(other) { return obj instanceof other; } ``` And here's an example implementation using Lodash: ```javascript import _ from 'lodash'; function isObject(other) { return _.isPlainObject(obj); } ``` These alternatives can be used as an additional benchmark to compare with the `typeof` operator approach.
Related benchmarks
Check object. typeof vs constructor
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?