Benchmark: Class cost - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

class Single {
  constructor(one, two, three) {
    this.one = one;
    this.two = two;
    this.three = three;
  }
}

class State {
  constructor(one, two, three) {
    this.one = one;
    this.two = two;
    this.three = three;
  }
}

class Sub1 {
  constructor(state) {
    this.state = state;
  }
}

class Sub2 {
  constructor(state) {
    this.state = state;
  }
}

class Multi {
  constructor(one, two, three) {
    this.state = new State(one, two, three);
    this.sub1 = new Sub1(this.state);
    this.sub2 = new Sub2(this.state);
  }
}

window.Single = Single;
window.Multi = Multi;

Tests:

Single
let instance = new Single(1, 2, 3);
Multi
let instance = new Multi(1, 2, 3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Single
Multi

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is an essential task for any developer who wants to optimize their code for better performance.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases:

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains two classes: `Single` and `Multi`. These classes are used to measure the performance of creating instances of these objects.

*   **Class `Single`:**
    *   This class has a single constructor that takes three parameters (`one`, `two`, and `three`) and assigns them to instance properties.
    *   The purpose of this class is likely to test the overhead of just initializing an object with simple data.
*   **Class `Multi`:**
    *   This class has two constructors: one that takes three parameters (`one`, `two`, and `three`) and another that takes a single parameter (an instance of `State`).
    *   The purpose of this class is likely to test the overhead of creating an object with multiple levels of nesting.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code contains the definitions of both classes, as well as assignments to global variables (`window.Single = Single;` and `window.Multi = Multi;`). This allows for a clean isolation between different benchmark tests.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

*   **Test Case 1: "Single"**
    *   Creates an instance of the `Single` class using the `new` keyword.
    *   The purpose of this test is to measure the overhead of just initializing a simple object.
*   **Test Case 2: "Multi"**
    *   Creates an instance of the `Multi` class using the `new` keyword.
    *   The purpose of this test is to measure the overhead of creating an object with multiple levels of nesting.

**Comparison**

The comparison between these two classes lies in their complexity and the number of operations performed during instantiation. The `Single` class has a simpler constructor, while the `Multi` class has a more complex constructor that involves creating another instance (`State`) and then another instance (`Sub1` or `Sub2`). This difference likely affects performance.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **Simpler Class (Single):**
    *   Pros:
        +   Fewer operations during instantiation, resulting in lower overhead.
        +   Easier to analyze and optimize.
    *   Cons:
        +   May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where objects are often more complex.
*   **More Complex Class (Multi):**
    *   Pros:
        +   More representative of real-world scenarios, as many objects have multiple levels of nesting.
        +   Can help identify performance issues in more complex codebases.
    *   Cons:
        +   Higher overhead during instantiation due to the additional operations involved.

**Libraries and Special Features**

There are no libraries or special features mentioned in this benchmark definition. The focus is solely on measuring the performance of creating instances of these two classes.

**Alternatives**

If you want to create your own JavaScript microbenchmark, here are some alternatives:

*   Use a testing framework like Jest or Mocha to create and run benchmarks.
*   Utilize libraries like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark to simplify benchmarking tasks.
*   Consider using WebAssembly (WASM) or other low-level APIs for more fine-grained control over performance measurement.

These alternatives can help you create high-quality, robust benchmarks for your JavaScript code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Single	8136723.5 Ops/sec
Multi	7970344.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Class cost (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Single vs Multi

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Single

Multi

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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