Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
typeof vs cached typeof (3 scans) (fixed)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
uncached typeof vs cached typeof
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump 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 (isObject) { 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:
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and its options. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to check if an object is of type `object` in JavaScript: 1. **Uncached `typeof`**: This approach uses the `typeof` operator without any caching mechanism. The `typeof` operator checks the type of a value by looking up the value's type in the `Object.prototype.toString()` method. On each iteration, it performs an additional check to ensure the object is indeed of type `object`. 2. **Cached `typeof`**: This approach uses a cached version of the `typeof` operator. The idea behind this caching is that the result of `typeof obj` can be cached and reused instead of recalculating it on each iteration. **Options Comparison** The main options being compared are: * Uncached `typeof` * Cached `typeof` Pros and Cons of each approach: * **Uncached `typeof`**: + Pros: - Easy to implement - No additional memory overhead for caching + Cons: - Slower due to the repeated checks - Can lead to performance issues if the value being checked is an object with a complex prototype chain * **Cached `typeof`**: + Pros: - Faster by reusing the cached result - Reduces the overhead of repeated checks + Cons: - Requires additional memory for caching - May introduce additional complexity in implementation **Library and Purpose** In this benchmark, there is no explicit library being used. However, it's worth noting that `Object.prototype.toString()` is a method on the `Object` prototype in JavaScript, which provides information about an object's type. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The tests only focus on the performance difference between uncached and cached `typeof` operations. **Alternative Approaches** Other alternative approaches to measure the performance of these benchmarks could include: * Using a different optimization technique, such as memoization or just-in-time (JIT) compilation * Comparing the performance of other JavaScript features, such as `instanceof` or `constructor` * Adding additional variations, such as checking for object properties or methods Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approach depends on the specific requirements and goals of the benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
instanceof vs typeof for objects
Check object. typeof vs constructor
typeof vs cached typeof (2 scans)
typeof vs cached typeof (3 scans)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?