Benchmark: Object.values overhead cost 4

Script Preparation code:

var myObj = {};
for (var i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
    myObj['val' + i] = 'val' + i;
}
var myObjValues = Object.values(myObj);

Tests:

Call Object.values on each execution
var curObjValues = Object.values(myObj); var myStr = ''; for (var i = 0; i < curObjValues.length; i++) { myStr += curObjValues[i]; }
Use shared Object.values
var curObjValues = myObjValues; var myStr = ''; for (var i = 0; i < curObjValues.length; i++) { myStr += curObjValues[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Call Object.values on each execution
Use shared Object.values

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 break down the provided benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript code that uses `Object.values()` method. The goal is to compare two approaches:

1. Calling `Object.values()` on each execution of the loop
2. Sharing the result of `Object.values()` between executions

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **Call Object.values on each execution**: In this approach, `Object.values()` is called within the loop to create a new array on each iteration.
2. **Use shared Object.values**: In this approach, `Object.values()` is called once before the loop, and the resulting array is shared between iterations.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Call Object.values on each execution**:
	* Pros: Easier to implement, as it eliminates the need for a shared variable.
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a new array on each iteration, which can be inefficient in terms of memory usage.
		+ Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of creating and managing multiple arrays.
2. **Use shared Object.values**:
	* Pros: Reduces memory usage by reusing the same array across iterations.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires careful management of the shared variable, as it can lead to unexpected behavior if not handled correctly.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, `Object.values()` is a built-in JavaScript method that returns an array of the values stored in a given object. The `myObj` and `myStr` variables are used to store data, but no external libraries are required.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `var` and `for` loops is a common pattern in older versions of JavaScript, whereas modern JavaScript would often prefer `let` and `for...of` loops.

**Other Alternatives**

If the benchmark were to test alternative approaches, some possibilities could include:

1. Using an array literal instead of `Object.values()`: `var myObjValues = ['val0', 'val1', ...];`
2. Using a custom implementation of `Object.values()` or a similar method
3. Comparing performance with different data structures (e.g., objects vs. arrays)
4. Testing the impact of caching or memoization on the benchmark results

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases, as well as potential changes to the script preparation code.

Overall, this benchmark provides a clear example of how to design a simple performance comparison for JavaScript code using `Object.values()`. By considering the trade-offs between memory usage and execution overhead, developers can make informed decisions about when to use each approach in their own applications.

Related benchmarks:

Object.values overhead cost 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Call Object.values on each execution vs Use shared Object.values

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Call Object.values on each execution

Use shared Object.values

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):