Benchmark: Temp obj or in check

Temp obj or in check (version: 4)

Is it faster to test if an object contains a sub-object before looking up keys on it, or substituting an empty object in a falsy check

Comparing performance of: Empty object with short method vs Empty object with long method vs Full object with short method vs Full object with long method vs Empty object with shorter method vs Full object with shorter method

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

var haystack = {};
var SIZE = 10000;
for (var i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) { haystack['a' + i] = i; }
var objA = {};
var objB = { haystack: haystack };
function get1(obj, key) { return (obj.haystack || {})[key] || -1; }
function get2(obj, key) { return (obj.haystack && key in obj.haystack) ? obj.haystack[key] : -1; }
function get3(obj, key) { return obj.haystack && obj.haystack[key] || -1; }
function randomKey() { return 'a' + Math.floor(Math.random() * SIZE); }

Tests:

Empty object with short method
get1(objA, randomKey());
Empty object with long method
get2(objA, randomKey());
Full object with short method
get1(objB, randomKey());
Full object with long method
get2(objB, randomKey());
Empty object with shorter method
get3(objA, randomKey());
Full object with shorter method
get3(objB, randomKey());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Empty object with short method
Empty object with long method
Full object with short method
Full object with long method
Empty object with shorter method
Full object with shorter method

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2883.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 55 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Empty object with short method	989850.9 Ops/sec
Empty object with long method	1219276.6 Ops/sec
Full object with short method	1080830.2 Ops/sec
Full object with long method	998664.9 Ops/sec
Empty object with shorter method	1209607.9 Ops/sec
Full object with shorter method	1084573.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for checking if an object contains a sub-object:

1. `get1(obj, key)`: This function checks if the `haystack` property of the object exists and returns the value at that key. If `haystack` does not exist, it returns -1.
2. `get2(obj, key)`: This function checks if the `haystack` property exists and if it contains the given key. If both conditions are true, it returns the value at that key. Otherwise, it returns -1.
3. `get3(obj, key)`: This function is similar to `get1`, but with a more concise syntax.

**Options being compared**

The three functions (`get1`, `get2`, and `get3`) differ in how they access the `haystack` property:

* `get1` checks for the existence of `haystack` as an object, then accesses the value at that key.
* `get2` checks for both the existence of `haystack` as an object and its contents containing the given key. This approach is more concise but also potentially slower if `key` is not found in `haystack`.
* `get3` is similar to `get1`, but with a more compact syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **get1**: Pros - more explicit, easier to read. Cons - may be slower due to the additional checks.
* **get2**: Pros - concise, potentially faster if `key` is found in `haystack`. Cons - may be less readable, and if `key` is not found, it can lead to unexpected results.
* **get3**: Pros - similar to `get1`, but with a more compact syntax. Cons - similar to `get2`, potential performance hit if `key` is not found.

**Library**

None of the functions use any external libraries or frameworks beyond JavaScript's built-in functionality.

**Special JS features/syntax**

The benchmark uses some special JavaScript features:

* **Object property access**: The code accesses properties of objects using dot notation (`obj.haystack[key]`).
* **Concise syntax**: The `get3` function uses a more compact syntax for accessing the `haystack` property.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Use a library like Lodash or Ramda to provide a more concise and expressive way of working with objects.
* Implement a more efficient data structure, such as a hash table or trie, to store the `haystack` property.
* Use a different approach altogether, such as using a regex pattern to search for the key in the `haystack` property.

Keep in mind that the benchmark's focus is on comparing the performance of these three approaches, so exploring alternative solutions might not be relevant to this specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Temp obj or in check (version: 4)

Is it faster to test if an object contains a sub-object before looking up keys on it, or substituting an empty object in a falsy check

Comparing performance of: Empty object with short method vs Empty object with long method vs Full object with short method vs Full object with long method vs Empty object with shorter method vs Full object with shorter method

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Empty object with short method

Empty object with long method

Full object with short method

Full object with long method

Empty object with shorter method

Full object with shorter method

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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