Benchmark: testtest0072255 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

object = { value: 'data' };
proxy = new Proxy(object, {})
proxyWithHandler = new Proxy(object, {
	get(target, prop, receiver) {
    	return object.value
    }
})

Tests:

1
object.value;
2
proxy.value
3
proxyWithHandler.value

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/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

6.7M/s

6.4M/s

2.9M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ 1	6,684,541 Ops/sec
2	6,435,078 Ops/sec
3	2,907,542 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is tested in the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. It contains two main components:

1. **Benchmark Definition**: This section defines the test case. In this case, it's a simple object and its properties. The "Script Preparation Code" provides the initial setup for the benchmark, including creating an object `object` with a single property `value`. Then, two proxies are created: `proxy` and `proxyWithHandler`.
2. **Individual Test Cases**: These are the specific tests that will be executed to measure performance. In this case, there are three test cases:
	* `object.value;`
	* `proxy.value;`
	* `proxyWithHandler.value;`

**Options compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are compared:

1. **Direct property access**: Accessing the `value` property directly on the original object (`object.value;`)
2. **Proxy-based access**: Accessing the `value` property through a proxy (`proxy.value;`) or another proxy (`proxyWithHandler.value;`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Direct property access**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward, and likely to be faster since there's no overhead from creating a proxy.
	* Cons: May not provide meaningful results since it's essentially accessing the original object directly.
2. **Proxy-based access**:
	* Pros: Allows for more control over the access behavior (e.g., intercepting requests). Can be useful in certain scenarios, like data validation or caching.
	* Cons: Introduces additional overhead due to creating and managing proxies, which may impact performance.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, a JavaScript built-in feature is used:

1. **Proxy**: The `Proxy` class is used to create two proxies: `proxy` and `proxyWithHandler`. Proxies are a mechanism in JavaScript that allows you to customize the behavior of an object's properties. In this case, they're used to intercept property accesses.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and doesn't utilize any advanced JavaScript features like async/await, promises, or generators.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark using different approaches, you might consider:

1. **Using a virtual DOM**: Instead of creating proxies, you could use a virtual DOM library like React or Virtual DOM to measure performance.
2. **Utilizing a caching mechanism**: You could implement caching using mechanisms like memoization (e.g., LRU cache) to compare the performance benefits.
3. **Incorporating asynchronous programming**: Asynchronous programming techniques, such as callbacks or async/await, might be used to introduce additional complexity and measure performance under different execution scenarios.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark's setup and code structure.

testtest0072255 (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: `1 vs 2 vs 3`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go 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):

testtest0072255 (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go 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):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `1 vs 2 vs 3`