Benchmark: set vs compare functions and set

Tests:

compare and set
const button = document.createElement('button'); const clickFunction = () => console.log('hola'); for(let i = 0; i< 1000; i++){ if(clickFunction.toString() !== clickFunction.toString()) button.onclick = clickFunction; }
Set
const button = document.createElement('button'); const clickFunction = () => console.log('hola'); for(let i = 0; i< 1000; i++){ button.onclick = clickFunction; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
compare and set
Set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark for you.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **Setting an event listener multiple times**: This involves creating a button element, defining a click function, and setting the `onclick` property of the button to the function 1000 times in a loop.
2. **Comparing functions and setting them as a new event listener**: This approach is similar to the previous one but uses a comparison to create multiple copies of the same function, which is then set as an event listener.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Set**: Setting an event listener multiple times using the `button.onclick = clickFunction` syntax.
2. **Compare and Set**: Creating multiple copies of the same function by comparing it to itself (using `clickFunction.toString() !== clickFunction.toString()`), and then setting each copy as a new event listener.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Set**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward approach, no unnecessary function creation.
	* Cons: Can lead to multiple copies of the same function being created in memory, which might affect performance if done frequently.
2. **Compare and Set**:
	* Pros: Reduces memory usage by reusing the same function object across all event listeners, potentially improving performance.
	* Cons: Creates unnecessary copies of the function, making it slower than a simple set approach.

**Other Considerations**

* Both approaches can lead to poor performance if done in a loop or for large datasets, as creating and destroying DOM elements, or recompiling the same function repeatedly, can be costly operations.
* The use of `toString()` in the "Compare and Set" approach might not be the most efficient way to create copies of the function, as it involves string conversion.

**Library/Features Used**

None are mentioned explicitly, but the benchmark assumes the presence of:

* JavaScript (of course!)
* DOM elements ( buttons, specifically)
* Event listeners ( onclick property)

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark. However, keep in mind that some features like `let` and `const` declarations, arrow functions (`=>`), and template literals (`\r\n`) might be used implicitly or explicitly in the script preparation code.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to setting event listeners could include:

1. **Using a library function**: Some libraries (e.g., Lodash) provide functions for creating event listeners that can improve performance.
2. **Using a wrapper function**: Creating a custom wrapper function around the original function, which encapsulates the event listener creation and management logic.
3. **Using `addEventListener` with multiple listeners**: Using `addEventListener` to attach multiple listeners to an element at once.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and the trade-offs between code readability, maintainability, and execution speed.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.90 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
compare and set	3892.7 Ops/sec
Set	3234.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set vs compare functions and set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: compare and set vs Set

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

compare and set

Set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):