Benchmark: Custom Event vs PubSub Single Event 10

Tests:

Custom Event
let i = 10; const results = []; while (--i) { window.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent('custom:test')); }
PubSub
class PubSub { constructor() { this.events = {}; } subscribe(event, callback) { if (!this.events.hasOwnProperty(event)) { this.events[event] = []; } return this.events[event].push(callback); } publish(event, data = {}) { if (!this.events.hasOwnProperty(event)) { return []; } return this.events[event].map((callback) => callback(data)); } } const pubSub = new PubSub(); let i = 10; const results = []; while (--i) { pubSub.publish('custom', 'test') }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Custom Event
PubSub

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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is comparing two approaches: `Custom Event` and `PubSub Single Event 10`. The purpose of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between using a custom event and a pub/sub (publish-subscribe) pattern in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

1. **Custom Event**: This approach uses the `window.dispatchEvent()` method to dispatch a custom event with a specific name ("custom:test"). The event is dispatched 10 times in a loop, where the loop counter (`i`) decreases from 10 to 0.
2. **PubSub Single Event 10**: This approach uses a pub/sub pattern implemented as a class `PubSub`. The `subscribe()` method is used to attach callbacks to specific events, and the `publish()` method is used to publish events with data.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Custom Event**:
	* Pros: Simple and lightweight, doesn't require additional library or setup.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient due to the need for event dispatching and handling in JavaScript engines.
2. **PubSub Single Event 10**:
	* Pros: Can handle more complex event structures and may be more efficient due to optimized event handling.
	* Cons: Requires additional library or setup (the `PubSub` class) and may have overhead due to the use of a class.

**Library/Class Used**

The `PubSub` class is used in the "PubSub" test case. This class implements a basic pub/sub pattern, allowing users to subscribe to events and receive data published to those events.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific requirements of your application:

* If you need simple, lightweight event handling with minimal overhead, `Custom Event` might be a good choice.
* If you require more complex event structures and optimized event handling, `PubSub Single Event 10` might be a better option.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches to pub/sub patterns include:

1. **Event Bus**: A library that provides an efficient and flexible way to handle events between components in web applications.
2. **RxJS**: A popular JavaScript library for reactive programming, which includes support for observables and event handling.

In summary, this benchmark compares two event handling approaches: `Custom Event` and `PubSub Single Event 10`. The choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your application, considering factors such as simplicity, performance, and complexity.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:126.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/126.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 126 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Custom Event	115518.0 Ops/sec
PubSub	568326.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Custom Event vs PubSub Single Event 10 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Custom Event vs PubSub

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Custom Event

PubSub

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):