Benchmark: Proxy target[key] vs Reflect.get vs optional Reflect.get

Script Preparation code:

object = { value: 'data' };

function getValue(){
return object.value
}
  

proxy = new Proxy(object, {
	get(target, key, receiver) {
    	return target[key]
    }
})

proxyOptional = new Proxy(object, {
	get(target, key, receiver) {
    	return proxyOptional === receiver ? target[key] : Reflect.get(target, key, receiver)
    }
})

proxyReflect = new Proxy(object, {
	get(target, key, receiver) {
    	return Reflect.get(target, key, receiver)
    }
})

Tests:

target[key]
proxy.value
optional reflect.get
proxyOptional.value
reflect.get
proxyReflect.value
baseline property access
object.value
baseline get function
getValue()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
target[key]
optional reflect.get
reflect.get
baseline property access
baseline get function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the test case. In this case, it's comparing three different approaches to accessing a value in an object:

1. `target[key]`: Direct property access on the target object.
2. `proxyOptional.value` (optional): Using the optional `Reflect.get` method with the proxy object.
3. `proxyReflect.value`: Using the `Reflect.get` method directly on the proxy object.

**Library and Purpose:**
The library used in this benchmark is not explicitly mentioned, but it's likely using JavaScript's built-in `Proxy` API to create proxy objects. The purpose of these libraries is to provide a way to inspect or manipulate the behavior of an object without modifying its underlying structure.

**Comparison Options:**

1. **Direct Property Access (`target[key]`)**:
	* Pros: Fastest and most straightforward way to access properties.
	* Cons: Does not allow for inspection or manipulation of property access.
2. **Optional `Reflect.get` (`proxyOptional.value`)**:
	* Pros: Allows for optional use of the `Reflect.get` method, which can provide additional insights into property access.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the optional nature of the `Reflect.get` call.
3. **`Reflect.get` (`proxyReflect.value`)**:
	* Pros: Provides a clear and explicit way to access properties using the `Reflect.get` method.
	* Cons: May be slower than direct property access, depending on the browser's implementation.

**Other Considerations:**

1. The use of optional `Reflect.get` introduces an additional layer of complexity, as it requires the test user to decide whether to use this approach or not.
2. The use of `Reflect.get` directly on the proxy object provides a clear and explicit way to access properties, but may require more development effort to set up.

**Benchmark Preparation Code:**
The script preparation code creates three proxy objects:

1. `proxy`: A basic proxy object with direct property access enabled.
2. `proxyOptional`: A proxy object that enables optional use of the `Reflect.get` method.
3. `proxyReflect`: A proxy object that always uses the `Reflect.get` method.

Each proxy object is created using a separate `Proxy` constructor call, and the `get` trap function is defined differently for each object to enable or disable the use of `Reflect.get`.

**Individual Test Cases:**
The test cases are defined as an array of objects, each specifying:

1. A benchmark definition (e.g., "proxy.value", "proxyOptional.value", etc.)
2. A test name (e.g., "target[key]", "optional reflect.get", etc.)

These test cases will be executed and their execution times compared to determine the most efficient approach.

**Alternatives:**
Other approaches could be considered, such as:

1. Using a different proxy implementation or library.
2. Optimizing the `Reflect.get` method call for performance.
3. Using a different data structure (e.g., an array instead of an object).

However, without further information on these alternatives, it's difficult to assess their pros and cons.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 14 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
target[key]	5369474.0 Ops/sec
optional reflect.get	2876709.0 Ops/sec
reflect.get	2787012.0 Ops/sec
baseline property access	6325597.0 Ops/sec
baseline get function	4427781.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Proxy target[key] vs Reflect.get vs optional Reflect.get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: target[key] vs optional reflect.get vs reflect.get vs baseline property access vs baseline get function

Created: 14 days ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

target[key]

optional reflect.get

reflect.get

baseline property access

baseline get function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 days ago):