Benchmark: Proxy target[key] vs Proxy Reflect.get vs object access

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

object access
object.value
proxy access
proxy.value
proxy reflect.get
proxyReflect.value

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object access
proxy access
proxy reflect.get

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 14 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.3.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object access	390358240.0 Ops/sec
proxy access	88137432.0 Ops/sec
proxy reflect.get	82185544.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares three different ways to access properties of an object:

1. **Object Access**: Directly accessing the `value` property of the `object`.
2. **Proxy Target Access**: Using a proxy object (`proxy`) that delegates access to the underlying object using the `get()` trap.
3. **Proxy Reflect.get**: Using a proxy object (`proxyReflect`) that uses the `Reflect.get()` function to delegate access to the underlying object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these three approaches:

* Object Access (direct property access)
* Proxy Target Access (using a proxy object with a `get()` trap)
* Proxy Reflect.get (using a proxy object with `Reflect.get()`)

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Object Access**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for performance, especially when dealing with complex objects or large datasets.
2. **Proxy Target Access**:
	* Pros: Allows for fine-grained control over access to properties, can be useful in certain scenarios (e.g., data validation).
	* Cons: Requires creating a proxy object and implementing the `get()` trap, which can add overhead.
3. **Proxy Reflect.get**:
	* Pros: Uses a standardized function (`Reflect.get()`) for delegation, which is likely to be optimized for performance.
	* Cons: May not offer as much control over access as using a custom `get()` trap.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses the following library:

* **Proxy**: A built-in JavaScript feature that allows creating proxy objects.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, apart from the use of `Reflect.get()`, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to access properties of an object could include:

1. **Property Access using dot notation**: `object.value`
2. **Property Access using bracket notation**: `object['value']`

However, these approaches are not directly comparable to the proxy-based methods used in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Explanation**

The script preparation code creates two objects: `object` and `proxy`, as well as their respective proxies (`proxyReflect`). The `Proxy` constructor is used to create the proxy objects, and the `get()` trap is implemented for each proxy object. The `Reflect.get()` function is also called on the second proxy object (`proxyReflect`).

Related benchmarks:

Proxy target[key] vs Proxy Reflect.get vs object access (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: object access vs proxy access vs proxy reflect.get

Created: 7 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

object access

proxy access

proxy reflect.get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):