Benchmark: direct vs indirect var return

Script Preparation code:

const getValueDirect = function() {
    return 1;
};
const getValueIndirect1 = function() {
    return getValueDirect();
}
const getValueIndirect2 = function() {
    return getValueIndirect1();
}

Tests:

indirect 1
const myValue1 = getValueIndirect1();
indirect 2
const myValue2 = getValueIndirect2();
direct
const myValue3 = getValueDirect();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indirect 1
indirect 2
direct

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 7 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided tests the performance of different approaches to returning a value in JavaScript, specifically focusing on the use of direct versus indirect function calls. Here’s a breakdown of the benchmark, including the options compared, their advantages and disadvantages, and alternative approaches.

### Benchmark Overview

1. **Direct Return**: 
   - **Test Case**: `const myValue3 = getValueDirect();`
   - **Description**: This case directly calls the function `getValueDirect`, which returns the value `1`.

2. **Indirect Return (Level 1)**: 
   - **Test Case**: `const myValue1 = getValueIndirect1();`
   - **Description**: This function calls `getValueDirect` indirectly through another function `getValueIndirect1`.

3. **Indirect Return (Level 2)**: 
   - **Test Case**: `const myValue2 = getValueIndirect2();`
   - **Description**: Here, the value is returned via two levels of function calls. It first calls `getValueIndirect1`, which then calls `getValueDirect`.

### Comparison of Approaches

#### Pros and Cons

- **Direct Call (getValueDirect)**:
  - **Pros**: 
    - Generally the fastest option, as it executes one function call directly.
    - Minimal function overhead and stack operations, leading to better performance.
  - **Cons**: 
    - Less flexible if more complex logic were to be added later, as all operations must be performed within a single function.

- **Indirect Call Level 1 (getValueIndirect1)**:
  - **Pros**: 
    - Allows for added complexity to be encapsulated in another function (e.g., logging, error handling).
    - More modular design, which may enhance maintainability in larger applications.
  - **Cons**: 
    - Introduces additional overhead due to the extra function call, leading to slightly reduced performance compared to direct returns.

- **Indirect Call Level 2 (getValueIndirect2)**:
  - **Pros**: 
    - Highly modular approach, potentially beneficial for complex implementations where functions can delegate responsibilities.
    - Supports patterns like event handling or callbacks, where multiple layers of abstraction may be necessary.
  - **Cons**: 
    - The performance hit is even greater due to two levels of function calls. This method typically has the highest overhead, leading to the slowest execution time.

### Benchmark Results

According to the latest benchmark results:

- **Indirect 2** provided the highest execution rate at approximately **22,438,668 executions per second**.
- **Direct** was close behind at **22,288,772 executions per second**.
- **Indirect 1** had the slowest performance at **20,809,578 executions per second**.

### Considerations

The performance differences, while notable, may not always be significant in the context of larger applications, where function call overhead might be negligible when compared to processing time. However, understanding these differences can help engineers make informed decisions regarding performance optimizations, especially in performance-critical sections of code.

### Alternatives to Consider

- **Function Inline Optimization**: Where the direct call might be optimized further by inlining the function code where feasible, this is often supported by modern JavaScript engines.
- **Arrow Functions**: The use of arrow functions can lead to cleaner syntax but does not inherently affect performance.
- **Tail Call Optimization**: While not applicable in this benchmark due to the nature of the calls, some JavaScript engines optimize tail calls to improve performance in recursive functions.

In conclusion, the benchmark provides valuable insight into the performance implications of direct versus indirect function calls in JavaScript, guiding engineers in choosing the right approach based on their specific use cases, performance requirements, and code maintainability considerations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indirect 1	20809578.0 Ops/sec
indirect 2	22438668.0 Ops/sec
direct	22288772.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

direct vs indirect var return (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: indirect 1 vs indirect 2 vs direct

Created: 8 days ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

indirect 1

indirect 2

direct

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 7 days ago):