Benchmark: LRU vs memoizeWith

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.1/ramda.min.js" integrity="sha512-rZHvUXcc1zWKsxm7rJ8lVQuIr1oOmm7cShlvpV0gWf0RvbcJN6x96al/Rp2L2BI4a4ZkT2/YfVe/8YvB2UHzQw==" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function createNode(key, value) {
    return {
        newer: null,
        older: null,
        key: key,
        value: value
    };
}

function LRU(size) {
    this.size = size;

    this.length = 0;
    this.head = null;
    this.last = this.head;
    // Require map polyfill
    this.map = new Map();
}

LRU.prototype.has = function(key) {
    return this.map.has(key);
};

LRU.prototype._hoistNode = function(node) {
    if (this.head === node) {
        return;
    }

    if (this.last === node) {
        this.last = node.newer || node;
        this.last.older = null;
    }

    if (node.older) {
        node.older.newer = node.newer;
    }
    if (node.newer) {
        node.newer.older = node.older;
    }

    node.older = this.head;
    node.newer = null;

    if (this.head) {
        this.head.newer = node;
    }

    if (!this.last) {
        this.last = node;
    }
    this.head = node;
};

LRU.prototype.get = function(key) {
    if (!this.has(key)) {
        return undefined;
    }

    var node = this.map.get(key);

    this._hoistNode(node);

    return node.value;
};

LRU.prototype.set = function(key, value) {
    var node;
    if (this.has(key)) {
        node = this.map.get(key);
        node.value = value;
    } else if (this.length < this.size) {
        node = createNode(key, value);
        this.map.set(key, node);
        this.length += 1;
    } else {
        node = this.last;
        this.map.delete(node.key);
        node.value = value;
        node.key = key;
        this.map.set(key, node);
    }
    this._hoistNode(node);
};

function memoizeWithLRU(size, prop, fn) {
    var cache = new LRU(size);

    return function (value) {
        var key = prop.call(null, value);
        if (cache.has(key)) {
            return cache.get(key);
        }

        const c = fn.call(this, value);
        cache.set(key, c);
        return c;
    }
}

Tests:

LRUMemoizeWith
var memo = memoizeWithLRU(50,i => i, i => i * 2); for (let i = 0; i < 5000; ++i) { memo(i); } for (let i = 0; i < 5000; ++i) { memo(i); }
Ramda memoizeWith
var memo = R.memoizeWith(i => i, i => i * 2); for (let i = 0;i< 5000; ++i ) memo(i); for (let i = 0;i< 5000; ++i ) memo(i);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
LRUMemoizeWith
Ramda memoizeWith

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 135 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Ramda memoizeWith

2K/s

LRUMemoizeWith

677/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Ramda memoizeWith	1,964 Ops/sec
LRUMemoizeWith	677 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark tests the performance of two approaches: `LRU` (Least Recently Used) cache and `memoizeWith`, which is a higher-order function that wraps an existing function with caching using LRU.

**LRU Cache**

The LRU cache implementation consists of three main methods:

1. `has(key)`: checks if a key is present in the cache.
2. `_hoistNode(node)`: moves a node to the front of the cache (i.e., makes it the most recently used).
3. `get(key)` and `set(key, value)`: retrieve or set values for a given key.

The cache uses a `Map` data structure to store nodes, where each node represents a cached value.

**memoizeWith**

`memoizeWith` is a higher-order function that takes three arguments:

1. `size`: the maximum number of items to store in the cache.
2. `prop`: a property selector function that extracts a unique key from an input value.
3. `fn`: the original function to be cached.

The `memoizeWith` implementation wraps the original function with caching using LRU:

1. It creates an LRU cache with the specified size.
2. When called, it checks if the result is already cached. If so, returns the cached value. Otherwise:
	* Calls the original function with the input value.
	* Caches the result in the LRU cache.

**Comparison**

The benchmark tests the performance of `memoizeWith` and `LRU` cache implementations under two scenarios:

1. Both scenarios involve calling a function (`i => i * 2`) repeatedly (5000 times each).
2. In the first scenario, `memoizeWith` is used with an LRU cache, while in the second scenario, the original function is wrapped with `R.memoizeWith`, which uses Ramda's implementation of `memoizeWith`.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `LRU` (native implementation)
2. `memoizeWith` (Ramda's implementation)

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

**LRU Cache**

Pros:

* Native implementation, potentially more efficient.
* Can be customized with different cache policies.

Cons:

* Requires manual management of the cache (e.g., adding, removing nodes).
* More complex to implement correctly.

**memoizeWith (Ramda)**

Pros:

* Higher-order function simplifies caching and LRU management.
* Part of a well-established library (Ramda).

Cons:

* May introduce additional overhead due to the higher-order function.
* Less flexible than a native implementation.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between `LRU` and `memoizeWith`, consider factors like performance, complexity, and maintainability. If you need fine-grained control over caching behavior, a native LRU implementation might be a better choice. However, if you prioritize simplicity and ease of use, Ramda's `memoizeWith` implementation could be a good option.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* `Ramda memoizeWith` outperforms the `LRU` cache implementation by a significant margin (around 3x).
* The performance difference is likely due to the overhead introduced by Ramda's higher-order function and the simplicity of the LRU implementation.

LRU vs memoizeWith (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `LRUMemoizeWith vs Ramda memoizeWith`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

LRUMemoizeWith

Ramda memoizeWith

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LRU vs memoizeWith (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: LRUMemoizeWith vs Ramda memoizeWith

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

LRUMemoizeWith

Ramda memoizeWith

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: `LRUMemoizeWith vs Ramda memoizeWith`