Benchmark: fafa234 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.26.1/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var s = {
d: '123'
}

Tests:

test1
s.d
test2
R.prop("d", s)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark being measured.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, which is a small program designed to measure the performance of specific parts of code. In this case, we have two test cases: `test1` and `test2`.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark measures the execution time of accessing properties on an object using different approaches:

* `test1`: Accessing a property directly on the object (`s.d`)
* `test2`: Using the Ramda library to access a nested property (`R.prop("d", s)`)

**Options compared**

We have two options being compared:

* Direct property access: `s.d`
* Property access using Ramda's `prop` function: `R.prop("d", s)`

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Direct property access (s.d)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight, no additional libraries or overhead.
		+ Typically faster since it's a direct memory access.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as readable or maintainable due to its concise nature.
2. **Property access using Ramda's `prop` function (R.prop("d", s))**:
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable, especially for nested properties.
		+ Can provide additional functionality, such as handling missing properties.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an extra library dependency (`ramda.min.js`) and overhead.

**Ramda library**

The Ramda library is a functional programming utility library for JavaScript. It provides a set of higher-order functions that can be used to manipulate and transform data in a predictable and efficient way. In this benchmark, we're using the `prop` function to access nested properties.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between direct property access and property access using Ramda's `prop` function, consider the trade-offs:

* If you need more control over the access process or want to handle missing properties, use `R.prop`.
* If you prioritize performance and readability, use direct property access.
* Keep in mind that using an additional library like Ramda may introduce latency and overhead.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or approaches for accessing nested properties, consider:

* Using a JavaScript object notation library like Lodash (`_.get()`).
* Implementing your own custom `prop` function using a library like Fastify's `utils.object`.
* Using a different functional programming approach, such as Immutable.js.

In summary, the benchmark is measuring the performance of accessing nested properties on an object using two approaches: direct property access and property access using Ramda's `prop` function. The choice between these options depends on your specific use case and trade-offs.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/72.0.3626.121 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 72 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	14521162.0 Ops/sec
test2	3400160.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

fafa234 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):