Benchmark: datasett - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var A=document.documentElement;
var B=A.dataset;
var X = 0;

Tests:

1
document.documentElement.dataset.test = ++X;
2
A.dataset.test = ++X;
3
B.test = ++X;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

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/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	279534.0 Ops/sec
2	329460.7 Ops/sec
3	336731.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Structure**

The benchmark consists of three test cases, each defining a script that increments a variable `X` using different methods:

1. **Native JavaScript**: `document.documentElement.dataset.test = ++X;`
2. **Property Access**: `A.dataset.test = ++X;` (assuming `A` is an object referencing the same `dataset` property)
3. **Variable Reference**: `B.test = ++X;` (assuming `B` is a variable referencing the `dataset` property)

**Options Compared**

These three test cases compare different approaches to incrementing a variable using the `++` operator.

*   **Native JavaScript**: This approach uses the native JavaScript syntax for incrementing variables, which is generally fast and efficient.
*   **Property Access**: This approach accesses the `dataset` property of an object (`A`) and increments the `test` property within it. While this method may seem similar to the native JavaScript approach, it introduces an extra step of accessing the property.
*   **Variable Reference**: Similar to Property Access, this approach references a variable (assuming `B`) that contains the dataset object.

**Pros and Cons**

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages:

*   **Native JavaScript**: Fastest and most efficient, as it directly accesses the variable without any additional steps. However, it may not be suitable for all use cases where the variable is not in scope.
*   **Property Access**: May be slower than Native JavaScript due to the extra step of accessing the property. However, this approach can be useful when working with objects that have a defined structure and dataset properties are easily accessible.
*   **Variable Reference**: Similar to Property Access, this approach may incur additional overhead due to variable reference and access.

**Library Usage**

In none of the provided test cases is there an explicit library being used. However, in the `Script Preparation Code`, we see that:

```javascript
var A = document.documentElement;
var B = A.dataset;
```

Here, `A` references the `document.documentElement`, which contains the root element of a web page's HTML document tree. The `dataset` property is then accessed and assigned to the variable `B`. This implies that the dataset object (`dataset`) is being used in these tests.

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing different approaches to incrementing a variable using the `++` operator.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative ways to test performance, here are some options:

*   **Using `const` vs `let`**: Instead of testing `++X`, you could explore how differences in `const` and `let` affect performance.
*   **Array iteration vs for loops**: You could create test cases that compare performance using array iteration (`for...of`) versus traditional for loops.
*   **Async operations**: To make the benchmark more realistic, you could add asynchronous operations to one or both of the tested approaches.

Related benchmarks:

datasett (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):