Benchmark: proxy200332 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

object = { value: 'data', getData() {return this.value;} };

proxyWithHandler1 = new Proxy(object, {
	get(target, prop, receiver) {
    	return Reflect.get(target, prop, receiver)
    }
})

proxyWithHandler2 = new Proxy(object, {
	get(target, prop, receiver) {
    	return target[prop]
    }
})

Tests:

direct
object.value
proxy1
proxyWithHandler1.value
proxy2
proxyWithHandler2.value

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct
proxy1
proxy2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the test case. In this case, there are three test cases:

1. `object.value`
2. `proxyWithHandler1.value`
3. `proxyWithHandler2.value`

These test cases measure the performance of accessing the `value` property directly on the original object (`object`) versus using two different proxy handlers: `proxyWithHandler1` and `proxyWithHandler2`.

**Proxy Handlers**

The benchmark uses JavaScript's built-in `Proxy` API to create these two proxy handlers:

* `proxyWithHandler1`: This handler returns the value of the accessed property by calling the `Reflect.get()` method. This means that the proxy will delegate the access to the original object, but still use the `reflect` mechanism to look up the property value.
* `proxyWithHandler2`: This handler simply returns the value of the accessed property directly from the original object.

**What's being tested**

The benchmark is testing the performance of accessing the `value` property on the original object (`object`) versus using these two proxy handlers. Specifically, it's measuring the:

* Direct access to the `value` property on the original object (`object.value`)
* Accessing the `value` property through `proxyWithHandler1`, which delegates the access to the original object
* Accessing the `value` property through `proxyWithHandler2`, which returns the value directly from the original object

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Direct access (`object.value`)**:
	+ Pros: Directly accessing the property on the original object, no additional overhead.
	+ Cons: May involve more CPU cycles due to the lookup in the object's internal structure.
* **Proxy handler 1 (`proxyWithHandler1.value`)**:
	+ Pros: Still delegates to the original object, but uses `Reflect.get()` for a potentially faster lookup.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the proxy creation and maintenance.
* **Proxy handler 2 (`proxyWithHandler2.value`)**:
	+ Pros: Returns the value directly from the original object with minimal overhead.
	+ Cons: May not delegate the access correctly if the property is not found on the original object.

**Library/Utility**

The benchmark uses the `Reflect` library, which provides a way to inspect and modify the behavior of JavaScript objects. Specifically, it uses `Reflect.get()` in the proxy handler 1 (`proxyWithHandler1`) to look up the value of the accessed property.

**Special JS feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It relies solely on standard JavaScript features and APIs.

**Alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark, here are some alternatives you could consider:

* Using a different proxy creation method (e.g., `Proxy.create()` instead of `new Proxy()`)
* Adding additional overhead (e.g., logging or encryption) to the proxy handlers
* Using a different object structure (e.g., arrays instead of objects)
* Implementing multiple proxy handlers with varying behavior

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
direct	7989411.5 Ops/sec
proxy1	3284576.0 Ops/sec
proxy2	6081248.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

proxy200332 (version: 0)

tests proxy impact

Comparing performance of: direct vs proxy1 vs proxy2

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct

proxy1

proxy2

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):