Benchmark: Benchmark of Object.keys multiple calls V2

Script Preparation code:

var object = {
  1: 2,
  3: 4,
  5: 6,
  7: 8,
  9: 10,
}

Tests:

Cache
const cached = Object.keys(object); const sum = 0; for (let index = 0; index < cached; index++) { sum += cached[index]; } for (let index = 0; index < cached; index++) { sum += cached[index]; } for (let index = 0; index < cached; index++) { sum += cached[index]; } for (let index = 0; index < cached; index++) { sum += cached[index]; }
Not Cached
const sum = 0; for (let index = 0; index < Object.keys(object); index++) { sum += cached[index]; } for (let index = 0; index < Object.keys(object); index++) { sum += cached[index]; } for (let index = 0; index < Object.keys(object); index++) { sum += cached[index]; } for (let index = 0; index < Object.keys(object); index++) { sum += cached[index]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Cache
Not Cached

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches:

1. **Cached**: This approach caches the result of `Object.keys(object)` and reuses it throughout the test case. The idea is to see if caching improves performance.
2. **Not Cached**: In this approach, `Object.keys(object)` is called repeatedly without caching its result.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Cache vs Not Using Cache**

**Pros and Cons of different approaches:**

1. **Cached Approach**
	* Pros:
		+ Reuses the cached result multiple times, reducing the number of function calls.
		+ Can improve performance if `Object.keys(object)` is a expensive operation (e.g., due to frequent garbage collection or slow database lookups).
	* Cons:
		+ Initial call to `Object.keys(object)` might be slower due to the overhead of getting the result.
2. **Not Cached Approach**
	* Pros:
		+ No initial call overhead, so it's faster for the first iteration.
	* Cons:
		+ Repeatedly calls `Object.keys(object)`, which can lead to performance issues if this function is expensive.

**Library and its purpose**

In both test cases, the library used is JavaScript's built-in `Object` object. The `Object.keys()` method returns an array of a given object's own enumerable property names.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It only uses standard JavaScript features and syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to modify this benchmark, you could consider alternative approaches, such as:

1. **Parallel execution**: Run both the cached and not cached approaches simultaneously to see if parallel execution improves performance.
2. **Different caching mechanisms**: Instead of using a simple cache like `const cached = Object.keys(object);`, you could use more advanced caching libraries or techniques (e.g., memoization, dependency injection).
3. **Alternative data structures**: Use different data structures (e.g., arrays, sets) to measure performance differences when iterating over them.
4. **Other JavaScript functions**: Test other JavaScript functions with varying levels of complexity and overhead.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternatives depends on your specific goals and requirements for the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Benchmark of Object.keys multiple calls V2 (version: 0)

Cache vs not using cache

Comparing performance of: Cache vs Not Cached

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cache

Not Cached

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):