Benchmark: loop obj - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

    var Document = function(Config) {
      this.config = {
        worker: true,
        width: "auto",
        height: "auto",
        format: "default",
        quality: "default"
      };
      this.init(Config);
    };

    Document.prototype.init = function(Config) {
      if(typeof Config == "object") {
        for(prop in Config) {
          if(this.config.hasOwnProperty(prop))
            this.config[prop] = Config[prop];
        }
      }
    };


    var Document2 = function(Config) {
      this.config = {
        worker: true,
        width: "auto",
        height: "auto",
        format: "default",
        quality: "default"
      };
      this.init(Config);
    };

    Document2.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]];
    };

Tests:

doc1
var preview = new Document({width: 50, height: 50});
doc2
var preview = new Document2({width: 50, height: 50});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
doc1
doc2

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.

I'll break down the benchmark and its components to explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different implementations of a `Document` class. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between these two classes.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines two classes: `Document` and `Document2`. Both classes have an `init` method that initializes their respective configurations.

The main difference between the two classes lies in how they handle configuration properties:

*   `Document` uses a simple iterative approach to update its configuration:
    ```javascript
if (typeof Config == "object") {
  for (prop in Config) {
    if (this.config.hasOwnProperty(prop)) this.config[prop] = Config[prop];
  }
}
```
*   `Document2` uses the `Object.keys()` method and a loop to update its configuration:
    ```javascript
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]];
```

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark doesn't include any DOM-related tests.

**Individual Test Cases**

The individual test cases are simple scripts that create instances of either `Document` or `Document2` with specific configurations and measure their execution time. The test names (`doc1` and `doc2`) indicate that these are separate benchmarking runs for each class implementation.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows the performance metrics for each test case, including:

*   `RawUAString`: The raw user agent string of the browser used to run the benchmark.
*   `Browser`: The specific browser version and architecture (in this case, Chrome 53 on a Windows system).
*   `DevicePlatform` and `OperatingSystem`: The device platform and operating system used to run the benchmark.
*   `ExecutionsPerSecond`: The average number of executions per second for each test case.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

The two approaches for handling configuration updates have different trade-offs:

*   `Document` uses a simple iterative approach, which is likely faster but may be less efficient in terms of memory usage.
*   `Document2` uses the `Object.keys()` method, which can be slower due to the overhead of getting the keys but provides better code readability and maintainability.

**Alternative Approaches**

There are other approaches that could have been used for configuration updates:

*   Using a library like Lodash or Ramda to provide utility functions for working with objects.
*   Implementing a custom recursive function for handling nested configurations.
*   Using a different data structure, such as an array or a Map, to represent the configuration.

However, the provided implementations are straightforward and easy to understand, making them suitable for benchmarking purposes.

Related benchmarks:

loop obj (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: doc1 vs doc2

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

doc1

doc2

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):