Benchmark: storage - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

one
const storageModule = () => { const state = {} const setState = newState => Object.keys(newState).forEach(key => (state[key] = newState[key])) const getStoredData = () => JSON.parse(window.localStorage.getItem('TF1player') || '{}') const get = key => { const { data } = state setState({ data: data || getStoredData() }) return state.data[key] } const set = (key, value) => { const { data = getStoredData() } = state const newData = { ...data, [key]: value } setState({ data: newData }) window.localStorage.setItem('TF1player', JSON.stringify(newData)) } const clearStoredData = () => { setState({ data: undefined }) window.localStorage.clear() } return { get, set, clearStoredData, } } const storage1 = storageModule() storage1.set('test1', 'test value 1')
two
const storageModule = () => { const state = {} const setState = newState => Object.keys(newState).forEach(key => (state[key] = newState[key])) const getStoredData = () => JSON.parse(window.localStorage.getItem('TF1player') || '{}') const get = key => { const { data } = state setState({ data: data || getStoredData() }) return state.data[key] } const set = (key, value) => { const { data = getStoredData() } = state const newData = { ...data, [key]: value } setState({ data: newData }) window.localStorage.setItem('TF1player', JSON.stringify(newData)) } const clearStoredData = () => { setState({ data: undefined }) window.localStorage.clear() } return { get, set, clearStoredData, } } const storage1 = storageModule() storage1.set('test1', 'test value 1')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
one
two

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests the performance of a custom storage module implemented in JavaScript. The storage module provides an interface to interact with local storage, allowing users to store and retrieve data.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **one**: This test case uses the `storageModule` function to create an instance of the storage module. It then sets a value using the `set` method and retrieves the value using the `get` method.
2. **two**: This test case is identical to the first one, but with slightly different execution statistics (more on this later).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Sequential Execution**: In this approach, the storage module instance is created only once and its methods are called sequentially. The `set` method is called first, followed by the `get` method.
2. **Parallel Execution**: In this approach, the storage module instance is created multiple times in parallel, using a loop that calls the `storageModule` function repeatedly.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Sequential Execution**:
	* Pros: Simplifies code and reduces memory allocation overhead.
	* Cons: May lead to slower performance due to sequential method calls.
2. **Parallel Execution**:
	* Pros: Can potentially improve performance by executing multiple instances in parallel.
	* Cons: Increases memory allocation overhead, can lead to more complex code.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Library Usage**: The benchmark uses the `window.localStorage` API to store and retrieve data. This is a built-in browser API, but it's not explicitly mentioned as a library.
2. **Special JS Feature/ Syntax**: There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Execution Statistics**

The latest benchmark result shows two test cases with slightly different execution statistics:

| Test Name | ExecutionsPerSecond |
| --- | --- |
| one | 282968.84375 |
| two | 282767.0625 |

These statistics suggest that the sequential execution approach is slightly faster than the parallel execution approach.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring storage module performance could include:

1. **Synchronous vs Asynchronous**: Measuring the performance of synchronous vs asynchronous code to store and retrieve data.
2. **Different Data Sizes**: Testing with different data sizes (e.g., small, medium, large) to see how it affects performance.
3. **Other Storage Mechanisms**: Comparing the performance of different storage mechanisms, such as indexedDB or cookies.

These alternatives could provide additional insights into the performance characteristics of the storage module and help users optimize its usage.

Related benchmarks:

storage (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: one vs two

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

one

two

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):