Benchmark: Direct access vs prototype lookup

Script Preparation code:

var LD = Array(100).fill(1).map(() => ({ x: 1, y: 2 }))

var P1  = { x: 1 }
var LP1 = Array(100).fill(1).map(() => { var A = Object.create(P1); A.y = 2; return A })

var P2  = { x: 1, y: 2 }
var LP2 = Array(100).fill(1).map(() => Object.create(P2))

Tests:

Direct
var S = 0 for (let x = 0; x < 100; x++) { let next = LD[x] S = (S + next.x + next.y) } console.log(S)
Semi-proto
var S = 0 for (let x = 0; x < 100; x++) { let next = LP1[x] S = (S + next.x + next.y) } console.log(S)
Proto
var S = 0 for (let x = 0; x < 100; x++) { let next = LP2[x] S = (S + next.x + next.y) } console.log(S)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Direct
Semi-proto
Proto

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 YaBrowser/24.7.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 24 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Direct	118258.9 Ops/sec
Semi-proto	122487.3 Ops/sec
Proto	122830.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark called "Direct access vs prototype lookup". The benchmark compares three approaches:

1. **Direct access**: This approach uses direct property access to access elements of the `LD` array, which is created using the `Array.prototype.fill()` and `Array.prototype.map()` methods.
2. **Semi-proto (Semi-Prototype)**: This approach uses a mix of prototype inheritance and object creation to create objects that inherit properties from a base object `P1`, while still having their own `y` property set to 2 using `Object.create()`.
3. **Proto**: This approach uses the same semi-proto approach as above, but with a different way of creating the objects.

**Options Comparison**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

* **Direct access**: This approach is simple and efficient, as it avoids the overhead of object creation and prototype lookup.
	+ Pros: Fast execution, minimal memory allocation.
	+ Cons: May not work well with large datasets or complex object hierarchies.
* **Semi-proto (Semi-Prototype)**: This approach balances between direct access and proto-based object creation, offering a compromise between the two.
	+ Pros: Offers better performance than pure proto-based approaches, but still avoids deep prototype lookup.
	+ Cons: May require more memory allocation due to object creation, and can lead to slower execution times in some cases.
* **Proto**: This approach uses a similar semi-proto strategy as above, with some differences in the way objects are created.
	+ Pros: Similar benefits to semi-proto, but with some tweaks to optimize performance.
	+ Cons: May require more fine-tuning and optimization to achieve optimal results.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses several libraries and features:

* **Array.prototype.fill()**: Used to create an array of 100 elements, filled with the value 1.
* **Array.prototype.map()**: Used to map over the array and create new objects for each element.
* **Object.create()**: Used to create objects that inherit properties from a base object.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, apart from:

* **let x = 0;` loops: Used for loop iterations, which can be optimized by some engines.
* `const` keyword is not explicitly mentioned but could be considered for the variable declarations.

**Other Alternatives**

If you'd like to explore alternative approaches or optimizations for similar benchmarks, here are a few options:

* **Use of typed arrays**: Using typed arrays (e.g., Int8Array) instead of regular arrays might offer better performance in certain scenarios.
* **Iteration using `for...of` loops**: Instead of traditional `for...in` loops, using `for...of` loops can provide better performance and more concise code.
* **Reducing object creation overhead**: Optimizing object creation and reuse strategies might lead to improved performance results.

Please note that the performance differences between these approaches may vary depending on the specific use case, engine version, and other factors.

Related benchmarks:

Direct access vs prototype lookup (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Direct vs Semi-proto vs Proto

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Direct

Semi-proto

Proto

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):