Benchmark: caching vs no cachink ye

Script Preparation code:

var objectString = {
    "reportActions_1234": {
        action: "view",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T10:15:30Z",
        user: "JohnDoe"
    },
    "reportActions_5678": {
        action: "edit",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T11:20:45Z",
        user: "JaneSmith"
    },
    "reportActions_91011": {
        action: "delete",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T12:25:50Z",
        user: "AlexJohnson"
    },
    "reportActions_1213": {
        action: "create",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T13:30:55Z",
        user: "EmilyBrown"
    },
    "reportActions_1415": {
        action: "share",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T14:35:00Z",
        user: "ChrisDavis"
    },
    "reportActions_1235": {
        action: "view",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T10:15:30Z",
        user: "JohnDoe"
    },
    "reportActions_5679": {
        action: "edit",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T11:20:45Z",
        user: "JaneSmith"
    },
    "reportActions_91021": {
        action: "delete",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T12:25:50Z",
        user: "AlexJohnson"
    },
    "reportActions_1214": {
        action: "create",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T13:30:55Z",
        user: "EmilyBrown"
    },
    "reportActions_1416": {
        action: "share",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T14:35:00Z",
        user: "ChrisDavis"
    },
    "report_1234": {
        action: "view",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T10:15:30Z",
        user: "JohnDoe"
    },
    "report_5678": {
        action: "edit",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T11:20:45Z",
        user: "JaneSmith"
    },
    "report_91011": {
        action: "delete",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T12:25:50Z",
        user: "AlexJohnson"
    },
    "report_1213": {
        action: "create",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T13:30:55Z",
        user: "EmilyBrown"
    },
    "report_1415": {
        action: "share",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T14:35:00Z",
        user: "ChrisDavis"
    },
    "report_1235": {
        action: "view",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T10:15:30Z",
        user: "JohnDoe"
    },
    "report_5679": {
        action: "edit",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T11:20:45Z",
        user: "JaneSmith"
    },
    "report_91021": {
        action: "delete",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T12:25:50Z",
        user: "AlexJohnson"
    },
    "report_1214": {
        action: "create",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T13:30:55Z",
        user: "EmilyBrown"
    },
    "report_1416": {
        action: "share",
        timestamp: "2024-07-17T14:35:00Z",
        user: "ChrisDavis"
    }
};

var reportActionIds = [
    "1234", "5678", "91011", "1213", "1415", 
    "1235", "5679", "91021", "1214", "1416"
];
var reportIds = [
    "1234", "5678", "91011", "1213", "1415", 
    "1235", "5679", "91021", "1214", "1416"
];

Tests:

no chace
function getString(collection, id) { return `${collection}${id}`; } for (let i of reportActionIds) { objectString[getString("reportActions_", i)]; } for (let i of reportIds) { objectString[getString("report_", i)]; } for (let i of reportActionIds) { objectString[getString("reportActions_", i)]; } for (let i of reportIds) { objectString[getString("report_", i)]; }
with cache
const cache = {}; function getString(collection, id) { if (!cache[collection]) { cache[collection] = {}; } if (cache[collection][id]) { return cache[collection][id]; } cache[collection][id] = `${collection}${id}`; return cache[collection][id]; } for (let i of reportActionIds) { objectString[getString("reportActions_", i)]; } for (let i of reportIds) { objectString[getString("report_", i)]; } for (let i of reportActionIds) { objectString[getString("reportActions_", i)]; } for (let i of reportIds) { objectString[getString("report_", i)]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
no chace
with cache

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
no chace	281081.4 Ops/sec
with cache	170673.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is the benchmark testing?**

The benchmark is testing two different ways of retrieving values from an object using string concatenation. The test cases are:

1. **"no cache"**: This test case uses a simple string concatenation approach without any caching mechanism.
2. **"with cache"**: This test case uses a caching mechanism to store retrieved values, so that subsequent requests for the same value can be served from memory instead of recalculating it.

**What's happening in the benchmark?**

The benchmark consists of two loops:

1. The first loop iterates over `reportActionIds` and constructs strings like "reportActions_<id>" using the `getString` function.
2. The second loop iterates over `reportIds` and constructs strings like "report_<id>" using the same `getString` function.

In both test cases, these loops are repeated multiple times to simulate a large number of requests.

**What's being measured?**

The benchmark is measuring the execution time (in seconds) it takes to complete the two loops. The raw execution time is reported in the "ExecutionsPerSecond" column.

**What does the latest benchmark result mean?**

According to the latest benchmark result, the **"no cache"** test case completes 281081.375 executions per second on a Chrome 126 browser on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 desktop, while the **"with cache"** test case completes 170673.875 executions per second.

This suggests that using caching (the "with cache" approach) reduces the execution time by approximately 39% compared to not using caching (the "no cache" approach).

In general, this benchmark is testing the trade-off between performance and memory usage when implementing string concatenation in JavaScript applications. The caching mechanism can help improve performance at the cost of increased memory usage.

Related benchmarks:

caching vs no cachink ye (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: no chace vs with cache

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

no chace

with cache

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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