Benchmark: Access to Object vs Signal 2.2

Script Preparation code:

class Signal {
  constructor(state) {
    this.value = state;
  }

  get() {
    return this.value; 
  }
  set(newValue) {
    if (newValue !== this.value) {
      this.value = newValue;
    }
  }
}

function createSignal(value) {
  const v = new Signal(value);
  return [v.get.bind(v), v.set.bind(v)];
}
var [sigData, setData] = createSignal({
    value: 'data'
});
// Object 
var mObject = {_value:'data'};
Object.defineProperty(mObject, 'value', {
    set: function (nv) {
        this._value = nv;
    },
    get: function() {
        return this._value;
    }
});

Tests:

object define properties
mObject.value
Signals access
sigData().value

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object define properties
Signals access

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 is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The test case measures the performance of accessing object properties versus signal (a notification mechanism). In JavaScript, when you want to notify other parts of your code that something has changed, you can use signals or events. Signals are a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES2017).

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Accessing Object Properties**: This involves directly accessing an object's property using dot notation (`mObject.value`).
2. **Using Signals**: In this approach, you create a signal with an initial value and use the `get()` method to access its value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Accessing Object Properties**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward
		+ No need to create or manage additional objects
	* Cons:
		+ May incur overhead due to property lookup, especially if the property is nested deep within an object
2. **Using Signals**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a notification mechanism for changes
		+ Can be more efficient than accessing properties, especially if you need to notify multiple parts of your code
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating and managing signal objects, which can introduce additional overhead

**Signal Library**

In this benchmark, the `Signal` class is used. The purpose of a signal is to provide a notification mechanism for changes. When you create a new signal, you specify an initial value, and when that value changes, the `get()` method returns the new value.

The `createSignal()` function creates a signal with an initial value and returns two functions: `sigData.get()` and `setData`. The `sigData` object represents the signal's state, and `setData()` allows you to update the signal's value.

**Other Considerations**

* **Caching**: Both approaches might benefit from caching intermediate results or storing frequently accessed properties in a cache.
* **Lazy Loading**: If accessing an object property is expensive (e.g., due to a database query), using lazy loading techniques can help reduce overhead.
* **Just-In-Time (JIT) Compilation**: Modern JavaScript engines like SpiderMonkey (used by Firefox) employ JIT compilation, which can improve performance by compiling frequently executed code into native machine code.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing object properties or notifying other parts of your code include:

1. **Events**: Similar to signals but often more flexible and powerful.
2. **Callbacks**: Functions that are passed as arguments to another function and executed when a specific condition is met.
3. **Promises**: Used for asynchronous operations, promises provide a way to manage outcomes and errors in a more structured manner.

When choosing an approach, consider the specific requirements of your use case, such as performance, ease of maintenance, or flexibility.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:125.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/125.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 125 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object define properties	1213602432.0 Ops/sec
Signals access	150959936.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Access to Object vs Signal 2.2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: object define properties vs Signals access

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object define properties

Signals access

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):