Benchmark: Access to Proxy vs Object no Reflect

Script Preparation code:

object = { value: 'data' };
proxy = new Proxy(object, {})
proxyWithHandler = new Proxy(object, {
	get(target, prop, receiver) {
    	return null
    }
})

Tests:

Object access
object.value;
Proxy access
proxy.value
Proxy with get handler access
proxyWithHandler.value

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object access
Proxy access
Proxy with get handler access

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object access	13032276.0 Ops/sec
Proxy access	11290676.0 Ops/sec
Proxy with get handler access	9193315.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between accessing an object directly (`object.value`) versus using a proxy object (`proxy.value`) and another proxy object with a custom get handler (`proxyWithHandler.value`). The tests aim to understand which approach has the lowest overhead in terms of CPU cycles.

**Options compared:**

1. **Direct Object Access**: Accessing `object.value` directly.
2. **Proxy Object Access**: Accessing `proxy.value`, where `proxy` is a proxy object created using `new Proxy(object, {})`.
3. **Proxy Object with Custom Get Handler**: Accessing `proxyWithHandler.value`, where `proxyWithHandler` is another proxy object created with a custom get handler.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Direct Object Access**:
	* Pros: Simple, no additional overhead.
	* Cons: May require additional computations or lookups to retrieve the value.
2. **Proxy Object Access**:
	* Pros: Reduces overhead by avoiding direct object access.
	* Cons: Introduces additional overhead due to the creation and lookup of the proxy object.
3. **Proxy Object with Custom Get Handler**:
	* Pros: Can optimize the get handler logic to reduce overhead, but this requires careful implementation.
	* Cons: Adds more complexity compared to plain proxy objects.

**Library usage:**

The benchmark uses the built-in `Proxy` constructor and its methods (`new Proxy()`, `get()`). The `Proxy` object is used to create a layer of indirection between the original object (`object`) and the access point. This allows for custom behavior, such as implementing the get handler, which is used in this benchmark.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested here; it's a straightforward comparison of accessing an object directly versus using proxy objects with different configurations.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, you could consider:

1. Using other proxy-related methods, such as `set()` or `deleteProp()`, to manipulate the proxy object.
2. Implementing custom getters and setters for a specific use case.
3. Comparing performance with different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) or platforms.

Keep in mind that this is just a starting point, and you can always experiment with variations of these approaches to find the most suitable solution for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Access to Proxy vs Object no Reflect (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object access vs Proxy access vs Proxy with get handler access

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object access

Proxy access

Proxy with get handler access

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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