Benchmark: Getter overhead - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

const input = new Array(1000).fill().map((v, i) => i);
const r = () => 42;
const a = () => r();

class B {};
Object.defineProperty(B.prototype, "read", { get: () => r() });
const b = new B();

Tests:

direct call
const result = input.map(() => a())
getter overhead
const result = input.map(() => b.read)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct call
getter overhead

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/139.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 139 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
direct call	1439278.8 Ops/sec
getter overhead	1417869.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 10 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the provided JSON tests the performance difference between two methods of accessing a value in JavaScript: a direct function call versus a getter property on an object. Below are the details of the test cases, the pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

### Test Cases

1. **Direct Call**
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `const result = input.map(() => a())`
   - **Description**: This test invokes the function `a()`, which internally calls the function `r()`. It directly runs the function without any intermediary.
   - **Executions per Second**: 1,439,278.75

2. **Getter Overhead**
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `const result = input.map(() => b.read)`
   - **Description**: This test retrieves the value of the getter `read` defined on an instance of class `B`. The getter returns the result of the function `r()` when accessed.
   - **Executions per Second**: 1,417,869.625

### Comparison of Options

#### Direct Function Call
- **Pros**:
  - **Performance**: Generally faster, as it involves a straightforward function call without any overhead associated with property access.
  - **Simplicity**: Easy to understand and implement; direct calls are clear in intent.
  
- **Cons**:
  - **Less Encapsulation**: Doesn't benefit from object-oriented features, which can result in less flexible code if you're aiming for extensibility or encapsulation around state.

#### Getter Property
- **Pros**:
  - **Encapsulation**: Getters can provide a clean interface for accessing object properties, allowing for computed properties and business logic encapsulated within the `get` accessor.
  - **Future-proof**: If behavior changes (e.g., if more logic is added within the getter), it won't affect the calling code.

- **Cons**:
  - **Performance Overhead**: Accessing a property via a getter can be slower due to the extra layer of function call overhead, even if the getter performs minimal work.
  - **Complexity**: Might be less intuitive compared to direct calls, particularly for developers unfamiliar with the concept of getters.

### Other Considerations
- **Use Case**: The choice between direct calls and getters primarily depends on the specific use case. For high-performance scenarios, direct function calls are often preferred. For scenarios where encapsulation and abstraction are more valuable, getters may be a better choice.
  
- **Browser Variability**: Execution speed may vary across different browsers and devices, which is typically why benchmarks are run and compared in various environments.

### Alternatives
- **Setters**: If the property needs to change values, using a setter in conjunction with a getter could be another approach, offering similar encapsulation but also complicating the execution cost.
- **Direct Object Access**: Directly accessing properties without a getter can provide similar encapsulation benefits as long as the complexity of property management is minimal.
- **Proxy Objects**: In advanced scenarios where additional manipulation or tracking of property access is required, JavaScript `Proxy` objects can be used for more sophisticated control.

In summary, the benchmark compares performance between direct function calls versus using a property getter, showcasing nuances in function performance and design choice trade-offs within JavaScript programming.

Related benchmarks:

Getter overhead (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: direct call vs getter overhead

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct call

getter overhead

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 10 months ago):