Benchmark: Test JS getter/setter

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {};

var _a = 1;

obj._a = 1;

obj.aGetter = function() {
  return _a;
}

obj.aSetter = function(val) {
  _a = val;
}

Object.defineProperty(obj, 'a', {
  enumerable: true,
  get: function () {
    return _a;  
  },
  set: function(val) {
    _a = val;
  }     
});

Tests:

obj.aSetter(2);
obj.aSetter(2);
obj.aGetter();
obj.aGetter();
obj.a = 2;
obj.a = 2;
obj.a;
obj.a;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
obj.aSetter(2);
obj.aGetter();
obj.a = 2;
obj.a;

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 benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition is represented by a JSON object that contains the following information:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which in this case is "Test JS getter/setter".
* `Description`: A brief description of the benchmark (null in this case).
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript code snippet used to prepare the test environment. In this case, it creates an object `obj` with a private property `_a`, and then defines getter and setter functions for the public property `a`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string, indicating that no HTML preparation is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of four individual test cases:

1. `obj.aSetter(2);`
2. `obj.aGetter();`
3. `obj.a = 2;` (note: this uses a feature known as "comma-dedicated expression" in JavaScript, which allows assigning a value to multiple variables using commas)
4. `obj.a;` (similar to the previous case, but without an assignment statement)

**Library and Features**

The test cases use the built-in `Object.defineProperty()` method, which is used to define metadata properties on objects. In this case, it's used to create a getter and setter for the `a` property.

The test case using commas-dedicated expressions (case 3) uses a syntax feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This allows assigning values to multiple variables with separate statements separated by commas.

**Options Compared**

Based on the benchmark definition, it appears that three options are being compared:

1. **Direct access (`obj.a;`)**: Allows direct access to the `a` property without using the getter function.
2. **Getter function (`obj.aGetter();`)**: Uses a separate function to retrieve the value of the `a` property.
3. **Setter function (`obj.aSetter(2);`)**: Allows setting the value of the `a` property through a separate function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each option:

* Direct access (`obj.a;`):
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and likely to be faster.
	+ Cons: May lead to accidents if not used carefully (e.g., accessing the private `_a` property directly).
* Getter function (`obj.aGetter();`):
	+ Pros: Allows for more control over how the value is retrieved, potentially leading to better performance or caching opportunities.
	+ Cons: Introduces an additional function call, which may be slower than direct access.
* Setter function (`obj.aSetter(2);`):
	+ Pros: Provides a clear and explicit way to set the value of the `a` property, making it easier to debug or modify the behavior later on.
	+ Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the function call.

**Other Considerations**

When running this benchmark, several factors may affect the results, including:

* The specific JavaScript engine being used (e.g., V8 in Chrome).
* The presence of any caching mechanisms that might impact the execution time of the getter and setter functions.
* Any optimizations or compiler tricks that might influence the performance of each option.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to benchmarking this scenario include:

1. **Using a different data structure**: Instead of using an object with private and public properties, consider using a data structure like a struct or a record.
2. **Introducing additional complexity**: Add more complex scenarios to the test cases, such as nested getters or setters, or combining multiple operations.
3. **Comparing different programming languages**: Run the benchmark in other JavaScript engines or programming languages (e.g., Node.js, Java) to compare performance and efficiency.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not necessarily relevant to the specific use case of testing getter and setter functions in a JavaScript object, but they can provide additional insights into the broader context of performance optimization and benchmarking.

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 Edg/119.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
obj.aSetter(2);	9841142.0 Ops/sec
obj.aGetter();	12081125.0 Ops/sec
obj.a = 2;	9862920.0 Ops/sec
obj.a;	11977549.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test JS getter/setter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: obj.aSetter(2); vs obj.aGetter(); vs obj.a = 2; vs obj.a;

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

obj.aSetter(2);

obj.aGetter();

obj.a = 2;

obj.a;

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):