Benchmark: Function.prototype.call vs direct call (2)

Script Preparation code:

var testObj = {
  one: '1',
  two: '2'
}

function test (item) {
  return testObj[item];
}

var selectpicker = {};

selectpicker.direct = function () {
  var result = test('one');
}

selectpicker.functionCall = function () {
  var result = test.call(this, 'one');
}

Tests:

direct
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { selectpicker.direct(); }
Function.prototype.call
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { selectpicker.functionCall(); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct
Function.prototype.call

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/119.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

direct

7.4M/s

Function.prototype.call

4.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ direct	7,353,057 Ops/sec
Function.prototype.call	4,010,087 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark in detail.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case. It's designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: `direct` and `Function.prototype.call`. The test is centered around the `selectpicker` object, which has two methods: `direct()` and `functionCall()`.

Here's what's being tested:

* The `direct` method: This method calls the `test()` function directly on the `selectpicker` object, passing `'one'` as an argument. The `test()` function returns a value from an object `testObj`.
* The `Function.prototype.call` approach: This method uses the `call()` method of the `Function.prototype`, which invokes the function with a specific context (in this case, the `selectpicker` object) and arguments.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches. Specifically:

1. **Direct call**: The `direct` method calls `test('one')` directly on the `selectpicker` object.
2. **Function.prototype.call**: The `functionCall` method uses `call()` to invoke the `test()` function with the `selectpicker` object as context and `'one'` as an argument.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Direct call**: Pros:
	+ Simple and straightforward approach.
	+ Might be faster due to fewer overheads (e.g., less context switching).
Cons:
	+ Less explicit, which might lead to confusion or mistakes.
* **Function.prototype.call**: Pros:
	+ More explicit and controlled approach.
	+ Can provide better performance by using the `call()` method's optimized implementation.
Cons:
	+ Might introduce additional overhead due to the `call()` method invocation.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark doesn't consider other factors that might impact performance, such as:

* **Optimization**: The code might be optimized for performance, which could affect the results.
* **Browser-specific behavior**: Different browsers might behave differently when executing this code.
* **Garbage collection**: Garbage collection cycles can interfere with the benchmarking results.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The provided JSON doesn't explicitly mention a library or special JavaScript features. However, it's worth noting that:

* The `Function.prototype.call` approach uses an older syntax, which might be deprecated in newer browsers.
* The `test()` function is not defined in the benchmark, suggesting that it's part of the test setup code.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmarking test case using different approaches or considering additional factors, you could explore alternatives such as:

* **Using a testing library**: Consider using a testing framework like Jest or Mocha to create more robust and maintainable benchmarks.
* **Profiling tools**: Use built-in profiling tools (e.g., Chrome DevTools) or third-party libraries to measure performance in more detail.
* **Multi-threading or concurrent execution**: Test the same code on multiple threads or using concurrency mechanisms to simulate real-world scenarios.
* **Different programming languages or frameworks**: Compare the performance of the same approach across different languages or frameworks.

Function.prototype.call vs direct call (2) (version: 1) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `direct vs Function.prototype.call`

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

direct

Function.prototype.call

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Function.prototype.call vs direct call (2) (version: 1) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: direct vs Function.prototype.call

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

direct

Function.prototype.call

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `direct vs Function.prototype.call`