Benchmark: setprototype - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

1
const a = {b:1}; const b = { get c(){return this.b} } const f=function(a){return a.b} for(let i = 0;i<10000;i++){ f(a) }
2
const a = {b:1}; const b = { get c(){return this.b} } const f=function(a){return a.b} for(let i = 0;i<10000;i++){ Object.setPrototypeOf(a,b) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	174054.0 Ops/sec
2	557.4 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 definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition with the following properties:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "setprototype".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating no description for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: An empty string, meaning no custom script preparation code is required.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string, indicating no custom HTML preparation code is needed.

This benchmark definition is likely a basic template for measuring the performance of setting prototypes in JavaScript. The actual implementation details are provided in the individual test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Test Case 1**:
```javascript
const a = {b:1};
const b = {
  get c(){return this.b}
}
for(let i = 0;i<10000;i++){
  f(a)
}

function f(a){return a.b}
```

This test case creates an object `a` with property `b`, then creates another object `b` with a getter function `c` that returns the value of `b`. The test then calls the function `f` on `a` in a loop 10,000 times. The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of accessing the `b` property through the getter function.

2. **Test Case 2**:
```javascript
const a = {b:1};
const b = {
  get c(){return this.b}
}
for(let i = 0;i<10000;i++){
  Object.setPrototypeOf(a,b)
}

function f(a){return a.b}
```

This test case is similar to Test Case 1, but instead of using the getter function `c` directly, it uses `Object.setPrototypeOf` to set the prototype of `a` to `b`. This allows the test to measure the performance of modifying an object's prototype.

**Comparison of Approaches**

The two test cases compare the performance of:

* Directly accessing a property through its getter function (Test Case 1)
* Modifying an object's prototype using `Object.setPrototypeOf` (Test Case 2)

**Pros and Cons**

* **Direct Access**: This approach is likely to be faster, as it avoids the overhead of setting up a new prototype chain. However, it may not provide accurate results if the getter function is complex or has side effects.
* **Prototype Modification**: This approach can provide more realistic results, as it simulates the common scenario where an object's prototype needs to be modified in a real-world application. However, it may introduce additional overhead due to the creation of a new prototype chain.

**Other Considerations**

* The test cases use a simple getter function that only returns the value of `b`. In a real-world scenario, the getter function might be more complex or have side effects.
* The loop size is set to 10,000 iterations, which may not be sufficient to detect performance differences between the two approaches.

**Alternatives**

Other benchmarking approaches could include:

* Using a more complex object with multiple nested properties and getter functions
* Adding noise or variability to the test cases, such as randomizing the values of `a` and `b`
* Using different JavaScript engines or browsers to compare performance
* Measuring the performance of other aspects of JavaScript, such as garbage collection or array operations.

Related benchmarks:

setprototype (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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