Benchmark: Global Lookups - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var NUMBERS = {
  one   : 1,
  two   : 2,
  three : 3,
  four  : 4,
  five  : 5,
};

Tests:

One
function one () { return { one: NUMBERS.one, }; } one();
Two
function two () { return { one: NUMBERS.one, two: NUMBERS.two, }; } two();
Three
function three () { return { one : NUMBERS.one, two : NUMBERS.two, three : NUMBERS.three, }; } three();
Four
function four () { return { one : NUMBERS.one, two : NUMBERS.two, three : NUMBERS.three, four : NUMBERS.four, }; } four();
Five
function five () { return { one : NUMBERS.one, two : NUMBERS.two, three : NUMBERS.three, four : NUMBERS.four, five : NUMBERS.five, }; } five();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
One
Two
Three
Four
Five

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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as "Global Lookups" and has a description that indicates its efficiency is directly proportional to the number of calls to the global scope. The script preparation code defines an object `NUMBERS` with 5 properties (one, two, three, four, five) assigned values. The HTML preparation code is empty.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, only one option is being compared:

*   Accessing a property directly from the global scope (`global` in JavaScript)
*   Using an object literal to access nested properties

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1.  **Direct Access**: This approach involves accessing properties directly from the global scope.

*   Pros:
        *   Faster, as it doesn't require an additional lookup or search operation.
        *   More readable, especially for small objects with a limited number of properties.
    *   Cons:
        *   May lead to code proliferation if used extensively, making maintenance more difficult.
        *   Can be less flexible, as adding new properties would require modifying the global scope.

2.  **Object Literal**: This approach uses an object literal to access nested properties.

*   Pros:
        *   More flexible and maintainable, as new properties can be added without modifying the global scope.
        *   Easier to manage large objects or complex data structures.
    *   Cons:
        *   May be slower due to the additional lookup operation required.
        *   Less readable for small objects with a limited number of properties.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The `NUMBERS` object is not part of any specific library. It's simply a predefined object used in the benchmark to test global lookup performance.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test other aspects of global lookups, such as caching or memoization, you could modify the benchmark definition. For example:

*   **Caching**: You could add a cache layer between the global scope and the object properties, forcing the browser to use caching instead of direct access.

```json
"Script Preparation Code": "var NUMBERS = {\r\n  one   : 1,\r\n  two   : 2,\r\n  three : 3,\r\n  four  : 4,\r\n  five  : 5,\r\n};\r\nfunction cache() {\r\n  var cache = {}\r\n;\r\nreturn function(key) {\r\n  return cache[key] || (cache[key] = NUMBERS[key]);\r\n}\r\n}"
```

*   **Memoization**: You could add memoization to the object properties, forcing the browser to use memoized values instead of direct access.

```json
"Script Preparation Code": "var NUMBERS = {\r\n  one   : 1,\r\n  two   : 2,\r\n  three : 3,\r\n  four  : 4,\r\n  five  : 5,\r\n};\r\nfunction memoize() {\r\n  var memo = {}\r\n;\r\nreturn function(key) {\r\n  if (!memo[key]) {\r\n    memo[key] = NUMBERS[key];\r\n  }\r\n  return memo[key]\r\n}\r\n}"
```

*   **Other Optimization Techniques**: You could test other optimization techniques, such as using `const` or `let`, or even testing the impact of different string representations on performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and might not be directly comparable with the original benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Global Lookups (version: 1)

The efficiency is directly proportional to the number of calls to the global scope.

Comparing performance of: One vs Two vs Three vs Four vs Five

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

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):