Benchmark: Iterate object - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<html>
  <head></head>
  <body>
  	var doc = new Document({width: 50, height: 50});
  </body> 
</html>

Script Preparation code:

    var Document = function(Config) {
      this.config = {
        width: "auto",
        height: "auto"
      };
      this.init(Config);
    };

Tests:

classic
Document.prototype.init = function(Config) { if(typeof Config == "object") { for(prop in Config) { if(this.config.hasOwnProperty(prop)) this.config[prop] = Config[prop]; } } };
new1
Document.prototype.init = function(Config) { var keys = Object.keys(Config); for(var i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) if(this.config.hasOwnProperty(keys[i])) this.config[keys[i]] = Config[keys[i]]; };
new2
Document.prototype.init = function(Config) { var keys = Object.keys(Config); for(var i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) if(this.config[keys[i]]) this.config[keys[i]] = Config[keys[i]]; };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
classic
new1
new2

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between three approaches for initializing an object in a `Document` class. The class has a `config` property, and the initialization method (`init`) is used to set this property based on a configuration object passed as an argument.

**Approaches Compared**

There are two main approaches compared:

1. **Classic approach**: This approach uses a traditional `for...in` loop to iterate over the properties of the configuration object and update the `config` object.
2. **New approach (new1)**: This approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of the property names in the configuration object, and then iterates over this array using a `for...loop`.
3. **Optimized new approach (new2)**: This approach also uses `Object.keys()`, but with a slight optimization by checking if each property is already present in the `config` object before updating it.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Classic approach**: Pros - simple to understand, well-supported by older browsers. Cons - slower due to the use of `for...in`.
* **New approach (new1)**: Pros - faster than classic, since it avoids the overhead of `for...in`. Cons - may not work as expected in some older browsers that don't support `Object.keys()`.
* **Optimized new approach (new2)**: Pros - balances speed and safety by checking for existing properties. Cons - may have a small performance penalty due to the additional check.

**Library and Special Features**

There is no explicit library mentioned in this benchmark, but it's likely that MeasureThat.net uses a JavaScript runtime environment like V8 (used by Google Chrome) or SpiderMonkey (used by Mozilla Firefox).

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. The code is written in standard ECMAScript.

**Alternatives**

For creating microbenchmarks and comparing performance, you can consider the following alternatives:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A popular benchmarking library for Node.js that provides a simple API for creating benchmarks.
2. **Benchpress**: Another benchmarking library that allows you to write benchmarks in JavaScript.
3. **WebPerf**: An open-source tool for measuring web page performance, which can be used to create microbenchmarks.

By using one of these alternatives, you can create and run your own JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net or other platforms, comparing the performance of different approaches and libraries.

Related benchmarks:

Iterate object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: classic vs new1 vs new2

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

classic

new1

new2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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