Benchmark: Object vs Proxy using map

Script Preparation code:

object = { value: 'data' };
map = new Map([['value', 'data']])
proxyWithMap = new Proxy(object, {
	get(target, prop, receiver) {
    	return map.get('value')
    }
})

Tests:

Object access
object.value;
Proxy with Map access
proxyWithMap.value

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object access
Proxy with Map access

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!

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring the performance of accessing object properties versus using a proxy with a map. Here's what's being tested:

* `object.value` and `proxyWithMap.value`: These two expressions are being compared to access the value property of an object.
* The object is created as `object = { value: 'data' }`, which means we're working with a plain JavaScript object.
* A proxy is created using `new Proxy(object, {...})`, which wraps the object and provides additional behavior when accessing its properties.

**Comparison Options**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Plain Object Access (`object.value`)**: This approach directly accesses the value property of the object without any intermediaries.
2. **Proxy with Map Access (`proxyWithMap.value`)**: This approach uses a proxy to wrap the object and provides a map to store additional metadata.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Plain Object Access**:
	+ Pros: Simple, direct access; no overhead from using a proxy or map.
	+ Cons: May involve more cache misses or indirect references, which could lead to slower performance.
* **Proxy with Map Access**:
	+ Pros: Can provide additional metadata, such as caching or logging, without modifying the object's original behavior. Also, can take advantage of map lookups for faster access.
	+ Cons: Introduces an extra layer of indirection and potential overhead due to creating a proxy and managing a map.

In general, if you need direct access to an object property without any additional processing or caching, the plain object access might be preferred. However, if you want to add metadata or perform lookups on top of the object's properties, using a proxy with a map can provide benefits.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark definition uses `Map` (a built-in JavaScript library) to store metadata for the proxy. The `Proxy` constructor is also used to create the proxy that wraps the object.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It's a simple, straightforward example of comparing two approaches using plain JavaScript objects and proxies.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches for measuring access performance, here are some options:

1. **Native Array or Set Access**: Measure the performance of accessing elements in an array or set using native methods like `array[index]` or `set.get()`.
2. **IndexedDB or LocalStorage**: Use IndexedDB or LocalStorage as a storage mechanism to measure the performance of accessing stored data.
3. **Web Workers or WebAssembly**: Experiment with web workers or WebAssembly for optimized performance-critical computations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require additional setup, configuration, and adjustments to accommodate your specific use case.

That's it! I hope this explanation helps you understand what's happening behind the scenes of this JavaScript microbenchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Object vs Proxy using map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object access vs Proxy with Map access

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Object access

Proxy with Map access

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):