Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
new WeakRef
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new WeakRef vs []: control
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new WeakRef
new WeakRef([])
[]: control
[]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new WeakRef
[]: control
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 what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark. **What is being tested?** The benchmark tests the performance of creating and using `WeakRef` objects, which are a type of weak reference in JavaScript. A weak reference allows the garbage collector to reclaim memory occupied by an object if it no longer has strong references (i.e., references that cannot be removed). **Options compared:** There are two options being compared: 1. Creating a new `WeakRef` object with an empty array (`new WeakRef([])`). 2. An empty array itself (`[]`), which is essentially doing nothing. **Pros and cons of each approach:** Creating a new `WeakRef` object with an empty array: Pros: * This creates a new, self-contained reference to the original object, allowing it to be garbage collected if necessary. * It allows for more control over the lifetime of the referenced object. Cons: * Creating a new object instance may incur some overhead due to the creation of a new object and its associated metadata. An empty array (`[]`): Pros: * This does not create a new object instance, which can be faster in terms of memory allocation and garbage collection. * It still allows for weak references to the original object, albeit indirectly. Cons: * It relies on the implicit weak reference created by using an array as a value in a map or set, which may have performance implications if the map or set is frequently modified. **Other considerations:** The benchmark also considers the device platform (Desktop/Linux), operating system (Linux), and browser version (Chrome 119). These factors can significantly impact the performance of the benchmark due to differences in hardware capabilities, JavaScript engine optimizations, and other factors. **Library used:** There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that the benchmark uses a standard implementation of `WeakRef` in the JavaScript engine being tested. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, the use of `WeakRef` does demonstrate an understanding of a more advanced JavaScript concept. **Alternatives:** If you're interested in exploring alternatives to this benchmark, here are some suggestions: * Consider testing the performance of creating and using `Symbol()` objects, which can also be used as weak references. * Look into testing the performance of different garbage collection algorithms or strategies. * Experiment with testing the performance of other JavaScript engines or browsers. Keep in mind that these alternatives will require modifying the benchmark definition and test cases to accommodate the changes.
Related benchmarks:
weakmap vs closure
weakmap vs closure vs private symbols
weakmap vs closure vs symbols
WeakMap vs "Symbol with WeakMap fallback" v2
weakmap vs closure vs private symbols vs private symbol object
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?