Benchmark: new WeakRef - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

new WeakRef
new WeakRef([])
[]: control
[]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new WeakRef
[]: control

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 what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance of creating and using `WeakRef` objects, which are a type of weak reference in JavaScript. A weak reference allows the garbage collector to reclaim memory occupied by an object if it no longer has strong references (i.e., references that cannot be removed).

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. Creating a new `WeakRef` object with an empty array (`new WeakRef([])`).
2. An empty array itself (`[]`), which is essentially doing nothing.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

Creating a new `WeakRef` object with an empty array:

Pros:

* This creates a new, self-contained reference to the original object, allowing it to be garbage collected if necessary.
* It allows for more control over the lifetime of the referenced object.

Cons:

* Creating a new object instance may incur some overhead due to the creation of a new object and its associated metadata.

An empty array (`[]`):

Pros:

* This does not create a new object instance, which can be faster in terms of memory allocation and garbage collection.
* It still allows for weak references to the original object, albeit indirectly.

Cons:

* It relies on the implicit weak reference created by using an array as a value in a map or set, which may have performance implications if the map or set is frequently modified.

**Other considerations:**

The benchmark also considers the device platform (Desktop/Linux), operating system (Linux), and browser version (Chrome 119). These factors can significantly impact the performance of the benchmark due to differences in hardware capabilities, JavaScript engine optimizations, and other factors.

**Library used:**

There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that the benchmark uses a standard implementation of `WeakRef` in the JavaScript engine being tested.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, the use of `WeakRef` does demonstrate an understanding of a more advanced JavaScript concept.

**Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternatives to this benchmark, here are some suggestions:

* Consider testing the performance of creating and using `Symbol()` objects, which can also be used as weak references.
* Look into testing the performance of different garbage collection algorithms or strategies.
* Experiment with testing the performance of other JavaScript engines or browsers.

Keep in mind that these alternatives will require modifying the benchmark definition and test cases to accommodate the changes.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new WeakRef	2928995.0 Ops/sec
[]: control	1826815616.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

new WeakRef (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new WeakRef vs []: control

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

new WeakRef

[]: control

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):