Benchmark: Getter vs Direct Read

Script Preparation code:

class Cat1 {
  constructor(name) {
    this.name = name;
  }
}

class Cat2 {
  constructor(name) {
    this.fields = {
      name,
    };
  }

  get name() {
    return this.fields.name;
  }
}

var cat1 = new Cat1("Cleo");
var cat2 = new Cat2("Felicia");

Tests:

Getter
cat2.name;
Property
cat1.name;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Getter
Property

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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that compare the performance of accessing object properties directly (i.e., using dot notation) versus accessing them through getter methods.

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section defines two classes, `Cat1` and `Cat2`, which represent objects with a single property called `name`. The difference between these classes lies in how they access the `name` property:
	* `Cat1` accesses the `name` property directly (i.e., using dot notation).
	* `Cat2` uses a getter method to access the `name` property.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This section is empty, indicating that no HTML-specific code is required for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The two test cases are:

1. **Getter**: This test case measures the performance of accessing the `name` property through the getter method in `Cat2`.
2. **Property**: This test case measures the performance of accessing the `name` property directly (using dot notation) in `Cat1`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

* Direct access to object properties using dot notation (`cat1.name;`)
* Accessing object properties through getter methods (`cat2.name;`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Direct Access (dot notation)**

Pros:

* Often faster, since it avoids the overhead of calling a getter method
* Can be more readable, especially in simple cases where getters are not necessary

Cons:

* May lead to security vulnerabilities if the property is not properly validated
* Can make code harder to understand and debug, especially in complex scenarios

**Getter Method**

Pros:

* Provides a clear way to encapsulate property access and validation
* Allows for more flexible behavior, such as lazy loading or caching
* Can improve code readability and maintainability

Cons:

* May introduce performance overhead due to the additional function call
* Can be less readable than direct access in simple cases

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no specific JavaScript library is used. However, getter methods are a built-in feature of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two fundamental approaches to accessing object properties.

**Other Alternatives**

To further improve this benchmark, additional test cases could be added to compare other approaches, such as:

* Using `Object.keys()` to access properties
* Using a loop to iterate over property names and access values
* Comparing the performance of using getters vs. computed properties (using `ComputedProperty`)

By adding more test cases, you can gain a better understanding of how different techniques affect performance in various scenarios.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Getter	11370359.0 Ops/sec
Property	13909928.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Getter vs Direct Read (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Getter vs Property

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Getter

Property

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):