Benchmark: test property read access

Script Preparation code:

var testObj1 = {a: 28, b: 82, 
  get_property() {
    return this.property;
  },
  get_property1() {
    return this.property1;
  },
get g_property() {
	return this.property;
},
get g_property1() {
	return this.property1;
}
, c: "hello", d: 983, e: 'lara', property: 32, f: '82828', property1: "asd"};

function get_property(obj) {
    return obj["property"];
}
function get_property1(obj) {
    return obj["property1"];
}


function get_property_cl() {
    return testObj1["property"];
}
function get_property1_cl() {
    return testObj1["property1"];
}

var C = 100000;

Tests:

2 - function
var result; for (var i = 0; i < C; i++) { result += get_property(testObj1) result += get_property1(testObj1); }
3 - method
var result; for (var i = 0; i < C; i++) { result += testObj1.get_property(); result += testObj1.get_property1(); }
4 - closure function
var result; for (var i = 0; i < C; i++) { result += get_property_cl(); result += get_property1_cl(); }
5 - es-5 getter
var result; for (var i = 0; i < C; i++) { result += testObj1.g_property; result += testObj1.g_property1; }
1 - direct access
var result; for (var i = 0; i < C; i++) { result += testObj1.property; result += testObj1.property1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
2 - function
3 - method
4 - closure function
5 - es-5 getter
1 - direct access

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 provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares different approaches to accessing properties in an object:

1. Direct Access (`"1 - direct access"`): This test measures the performance of directly accessing the `property` and `property1` fields using bracket notation (e.g., `testObj1["property"]`).
2. Function-based Access (`"2 - function"`): This test uses functions to access the properties, where two separate functions (`get_property` and `get_property1`) are used to retrieve the values.
3. Method-based Access (`"3 - method"`): This test uses methods (getter functions) defined on the object itself to access its properties (`testObj1.get_property()` and `testObj1.get_property1()`).
4. Closure-based Access (`"4 - closure function"`): Similar to method-based access, but using closure functions (e.g., `get_property_cl` and `get_property1_cl`) defined outside the object.
5. ES-5 Getter (`"5 - es-5 getter"`): This test uses ES-5 getters (defined on the property itself) to access its value (`testObj1.property` and `testObj1.property1`).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary:

* **Direct Access**: Fast and straightforward, but may not work as expected if the object is deeply nested or has complex methods. Pros: simple, cons: potential performance issues.
* **Function-based Access**: Provides more control over property access, but can lead to slower performance due to function overhead. Pros: flexibility, cons: slower.
* **Method-based Access**: Similar to function-based access, but leverages the object's own method implementation. Pros: flexible, cons: may not work if the object doesn't provide a getter.
* **Closure-based Access**: Provides a more explicit way of accessing properties, similar to methods. Pros: clear intent, cons: potential performance overhead due to closure creation.
* **ES-5 Getter**: Provides a concise and elegant way to define getters on an object's property. Pros: expressive, cons: limited control over getter behavior.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the `get_property` and `get_property1` functions from the provided Script Preparation Code to access properties of `testObj1`. These functions are essentially wrappers around the bracket notation used in Direct Access.

No external libraries are required for this benchmark, making it easily portable across different environments.

**Special JS Feature**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as `let`, `const`, `async/await`, or modern modules (e.g., ES6 imports). It focuses on the fundamental aspects of accessing properties in an object.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

Other alternatives for testing property access might include:

* Using different data structures, like arrays or objects with complex nested structures.
* Incorporating dynamic property names or values.
* Comparing different data encoding schemes (e.g., JSON vs. serialized objects).
* Experimenting with various optimization techniques, such as caching or memoization.

These variations would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with accessing properties in JavaScript objects.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:58.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/58.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 58 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
direct	1273.7 Ops/sec
get_function	807.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test property read access (version: 8)

Comparing performance of: 2 - function vs 3 - method vs 4 - closure function vs 5 - es-5 getter vs 1 - direct access

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

2 - function

3 - method

4 - closure function

5 - es-5 getter

1 - direct access

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):