Benchmark: typeof vs cached typeof (3 scans) (fixed)

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {};

Tests:

uncached typeof
for (let n = 0; n < 1000; n++) { if (typeof obj === 'object') { if (typeof obj === 'object') { if (typeof obj === 'object') { return true; } } } }
cached typeof
for (let n = 0; n < 1000; n++) { const isObject = typeof obj; if (isObject) { if (isObject) { if (isObject) { return true; } } } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
uncached typeof
cached typeof

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to check if an object is of type `object` in JavaScript:

1. **Uncached `typeof`**: This approach uses the `typeof` operator without any caching mechanism. The `typeof` operator checks the type of a value by looking up the value's type in the `Object.prototype.toString()` method. On each iteration, it performs an additional check to ensure the object is indeed of type `object`.
2. **Cached `typeof`**: This approach uses a cached version of the `typeof` operator. The idea behind this caching is that the result of `typeof obj` can be cached and reused instead of recalculating it on each iteration.

**Options Comparison**

The main options being compared are:

* Uncached `typeof`
* Cached `typeof`

Pros and Cons of each approach:

* **Uncached `typeof`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to implement
		- No additional memory overhead for caching
	+ Cons:
		- Slower due to the repeated checks
		- Can lead to performance issues if the value being checked is an object with a complex prototype chain
* **Cached `typeof`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster by reusing the cached result
		- Reduces the overhead of repeated checks
	+ Cons:
		- Requires additional memory for caching
		- May introduce additional complexity in implementation

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library being used. However, it's worth noting that `Object.prototype.toString()` is a method on the `Object` prototype in JavaScript, which provides information about an object's type.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The tests only focus on the performance difference between uncached and cached `typeof` operations.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternative approaches to measure the performance of these benchmarks could include:

* Using a different optimization technique, such as memoization or just-in-time (JIT) compilation
* Comparing the performance of other JavaScript features, such as `instanceof` or `constructor`
* Adding additional variations, such as checking for object properties or methods

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approach depends on the specific requirements and goals of the benchmark.

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/111.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 111 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
uncached typeof	185918352.0 Ops/sec
cached typeof	919654912.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

typeof vs cached typeof (3 scans) (fixed) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: uncached typeof vs cached typeof

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

uncached typeof

cached typeof

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):