Benchmark: test property write access

Script Preparation code:

var testObj1 = {a: 28, b: 82, c: "hello", d: 983, e: 'lara', property: 32, f: '82828', property1: "asd"};

function set_property(obj, prop) {
    obj["property"] = prop;
}
function set_property1(obj, prop) {
    obj["property1"] = prop;
}

var C = 1000;

Tests:

direct
var result; for (var i = 0; i < C; i++) { result = testObj1.property; testObj1["property1"] = result; }
set function
var result; for (var i = 0; i < C; i++) { result = testObj1.property; set_property1(testObj1, result); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct
set function

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 explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **Direct property access**: Accessing the `property` property directly on the `testObj1` object using the bracket notation (`testObj1["property"]`).
2. **Set function**: Using a custom set function `set_property1` to update the `property1` property with the value of the `property` property.

**Library and Purpose**

The benchmark uses the JavaScript engine's built-in feature: accessing object properties using bracket notation (`obj["prop"]`). This is not explicitly mentioned in the JSON, but it's an essential part of how objects are accessed in JavaScript. No additional libraries are required for this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It only involves standard JavaScript object property access and a custom set function.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code initializes the `testObj1` object with various properties, including `property`, `property1`, and sets up two functions: `set_property` (not used) and `set_property1`. The variable `C` is defined as 1000.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

### Direct

* Benchmark Definition:
```javascript
var result;
for (var i = 0; i < C; i++) {
    result = testObj1.property;
    testObj1["property1"] = result;
}
```
This test case uses direct property access to update `property1` with the value of `property`. The loop iterates 1000 times, and for each iteration, it updates `result` by accessing `testObj1.property`, then assigns the updated value to `testObj1["property1"]`.

### Set Function

* Benchmark Definition:
```javascript
var result;
for (var i = 0; i < C; i++) {
    result = testObj1.property;
    set_property1(testObj1, result);
}
```
This test case uses the custom `set_property1` function to update `property1` with the value of `property`. The loop iterates 1000 times, and for each iteration, it updates `result` by accessing `testObj1.property`, then calls `set_property1` to update `property1`.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance difference between these two approaches:

* Direct property access
* Using a custom set function (`set_property1`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

### Direct Property Access

Pros:

* Simple and efficient, as it only requires accessing the object property once.
* Fast execution time.

Cons:

* May require more memory allocations (if `property1` is not initialized before updating), although this is likely negligible in modern JavaScript engines.

### Set Function (`set_property1`)

Pros:

* Allows for explicit control over the update operation, which might be beneficial in certain scenarios.
* Can help prevent potential issues with property updates (e.g., due to object mutation).

Cons:

* Requires an additional function call and potentially more memory allocations, which can lead to slower execution times.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more test cases or variations to this benchmark, you could consider:

* Using different property access patterns (e.g., dot notation instead of bracket notation).
* Introducing additional object properties or mutations.
* Exploring the impact of JavaScript engine optimizations on performance.
* Comparing the performance difference between multiple browsers or platforms.

Keep in mind that these additions should be carefully considered to maintain the benchmark's relevance and accuracy.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/64.0.3282.119 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 64 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
direct	39.6 Ops/sec
get_function	29.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test property write access (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: direct vs set function

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

direct

set function

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):