Benchmark: variable vs property (var vs this.property

Script Preparation code:

var aaaaa=123,bbbbb=123,ccccc=123;
this.d=this.e=this.f=123;

Tests:

variable
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { aaaaa + bbbbb + ccccc + i; }
property
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { this.d + this.e + this.f + i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
variable
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 test cases and explain what's being tested.

**Test Case: variable vs property**

The test case compares the performance of two approaches:

1. **Variable approach**: The code uses variables (`aaaaa`, `bbbbb`, `ccccc`) to store values, which are then concatenated with an integer value using the `+` operator.
2. **Property access approach**: The code accesses properties (`d`, `e`, `f`) of the `this` object and concatenates them with an integer value using the `+` operator.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Variable approach:**
	+ Pros:
		- May be more intuitive for some developers, as it uses explicit variable names.
		- Could potentially cache values in memory, reducing overhead.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual allocation of memory for variables, which can lead to performance issues.
		- Variable naming can become cluttered and harder to maintain.
* **Property access approach:**
	+ Pros:
		- Eliminates the need for explicit variable allocation, reducing memory pressure.
		- May be more concise and readable, as property names are often shorter and more meaningful.
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of accessing properties on the `this` object.
		- Property naming conventions may not be immediately clear or consistent.

**Other considerations:**

* Both approaches rely on string concatenation using the `+` operator, which can introduce additional overhead.
* The `for` loop iteration count is fixed at 100, ensuring a consistent test environment.

**Library and special JS features: None mentioned in this case.**

Now, let's talk about alternatives:

1. **Using template literals**: Instead of concatenating strings using the `+` operator, you could use template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to create string expressions with embedded values.
2. **Implementing a custom concatenation function**: You could define a custom function to concatenate strings, potentially optimized for performance and providing more control over the concatenation process.

In conclusion, this test case aims to compare the performance of two approaches: using explicit variables vs accessing properties on the `this` object. The variable approach may offer some benefits in terms of intuition and caching values, but also introduces memory overhead. The property access approach reduces memory pressure but might incur slower performance due to property access overhead.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Iron Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
variable	27874.9 Ops/sec
property	4343148.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

variable vs property (var vs this.property (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: variable vs property

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

variable

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):