Benchmark: _checkUsedExpressionAttributes

Script Preparation code:

var cbscope, property, attrscope, propnames, listenerkey, execexpr, cbafter, cbbefore, isDomExpr;

var key = "[WebApp.ui.form.field.Field][getFieldValueInUserFormat]", 
    classname = "WebApp.ui.form.field.Field",
    attrname = "_parseValue2InputCatched",
    preparedRegEx = new RegExp("\\[([^\\]]+)\\]\\[" + attrname + "\\]"),
    propnames = ["A", "B", "C", attrname];

var WebAppExpr = {
  _functsList: {},
  _functsListNew: {},
  _functsListArray: []
};
var attrscopeClass = function() {};
attrscopeClass.prototype.is = function(classname) { return true; } 
attrscopeClass.prototype.getClassNames = function(classname) { return ["WebApp.ui.form.field.Field"]; } 
var attrscope = new attrscopeClass();

var __addListenersForUsedExpressionChanged = function() {};


for (var c=0; c < 100; c++) {
  	var c_class 	= "CLASS_" + c,
        functions = [];
  
  	for (var i=0; i < 100; i++) {
    	var c_fn = "FUNCTION_" + i;
    	functions[i] = c_fn;
	    WebAppExpr._functsList["[" + c_class + "][" + c_fn + "]"] = propnames;
  	}
  
  	WebAppExpr._functsListArray.push({
    	classname : c_class,
    	functions : functions,
    	propnames : propnames
  	});

	WebAppExpr._functsListNew[c_class] = {
    	functions : functions,
    	propnames : propnames
    }
}
WebAppExpr._functsListArray.push({
  	classname : classname,
  	functions : ["getFieldValueInUserFormat"],
  	propnames : propnames
  });
  
WebAppExpr._functsListNew[classname] = {
  functions : ["getFieldValueInUserFormat"],
  propnames : propnames
}
WebAppExpr._functsList[key] = propnames;

Tests:

Original expr
for (var key in WebAppExpr._functsList) { var matcher = new RegExp("\\[([^\\]]+)\\]\\[" + attrname + "\\]").exec(key); if (matcher != null) { var classname = matcher[1]; if (attrscope.is(classname)) { var propnames = WebAppExpr._functsList[key]; for (var ifnprop=0, nfnprops = propnames.length; ifnprop < nfnprops; ifnprop++) { __addListenersForUsedExpressionChanged(cbscope, property, attrscope, propnames[ifnprop], listenerkey, execexpr, cbafter, cbbefore, isDomExpr); } } } }
Eval prepared regex
for (var key in WebAppExpr._functsList) { var matcher = preparedRegEx.exec(key); if (matcher != null) { var classname = matcher[1]; if (attrscope.is(classname)) { var propnames = WebAppExpr._functsList[key]; for (var ifnprop=0, nfnprops = propnames.length; ifnprop < nfnprops; ifnprop++) { __addListenersForUsedExpressionChanged(cbscope, property, attrscope, propnames[ifnprop], listenerkey, execexpr, cbafter, cbbefore, isDomExpr); } } } }
New JSON Wrapper
attrscope.getClassNames().forEach(function(classname) { var functsList = WebAppExpr._functsListNew[classname], propsNames = functsList != null ? functsList[attrname] : null; if (propsNames != null) { for (var ifnprop=0, nfnprops = propsNames.length; ifnprop < nfnprops; ifnprop++) { __addListenersForUsedExpressionChanged(cbscope, property, attrscope, propsNames[ifnprop], listenerkey, execexpr, cbafter, cbbefore, isDomExpr); } } })
New Array Wrapper
attrscope.getClassNames().forEach(function(classname) { var functsList = WebAppExpr._functsListArray.find(function(listopt) { return listopt.classname === classname}), propsNames = functsList != null ? functsList[attrname] : null; if (propsNames != null) { for (var ifnprop=0, nfnprops = propsNames.length; ifnprop < nfnprops; ifnprop++) { __addListenersForUsedExpressionChanged(cbscope, property, attrscope, propsNames[ifnprop], listenerkey, execexpr, cbafter, cbbefore, isDomExpr); } } })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Original expr
Eval prepared regex
New JSON Wrapper
New Array Wrapper

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an answer based on the provided benchmark results.

It appears that we have four test cases: `New JSON Wrapper`, `New Array Wrapper`, `Eval prepared regex`, and `Original expr`.

The results show that:

* The `New JSON Wrapper` and `New Array Wrapper` tests are very similar, with the former having a significantly higher number of executions per second (2880022.25 vs 1413649.75).
* The `Eval prepared regex` test is slower than the other two (115.4171371459961 executions per second), but still relatively fast.
* The `Original expr` test has a very low number of executions per second (4.9535603523254395), indicating that it may be skipped or optimized.

Based on this information, I would suggest that:

* The `New JSON Wrapper` and `New Array Wrapper` tests should be further optimized to improve their performance.
* The `Eval prepared regex` test should remain as is, but with possible optimization opportunities.
* The `Original expr` test should be skipped or optimized, possibly by removing or simplifying the code.

However, without more context about the specific requirements and constraints of these benchmarks, it's difficult to provide a more definitive answer.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/65.0.3325.162 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 65 on Mac OS X 10.13.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Original expr	5.0 Ops/sec
Eval prepared regex	115.4 Ops/sec
New JSON Wrapper	2880022.2 Ops/sec
New Array Wrapper	1413649.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

_checkUsedExpressionAttributes (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: Original expr vs Eval prepared regex vs New JSON Wrapper vs New Array Wrapper

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Original expr

Eval prepared regex

New JSON Wrapper

New Array Wrapper

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):