Benchmark: Value from array VS function wrapper of array

Script Preparation code:

DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION = {
  HOURS: 'AT_TICK',
  DAYS: 'AT_TICK',
  WEEKS: 'BETWEEN_TICKS',
  MONTHS: 'BETWEEN_TICKS',
};

Tests:

use constant values
console.log(DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION['HOURS']); console.log(DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION['DAYS']); console.log(DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION['WEEKS']); console.log(DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION['MONTHS']);
use wrapper function for this constant
function getAxisLabelPosition(scale, values) { return values[scale]; } console.log(getAxisLabelPosition('HOURS', DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION)); console.log(getAxisLabelPosition('DAYS', DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION)); console.log(getAxisLabelPosition('WEEKS', DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION)); console.log(getAxisLabelPosition('MONTHS', DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
use constant values
use wrapper function for this constant

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:76.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/76.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 76 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
use constant values	11375.3 Ops/sec
use wrapper function for this constant	11539.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks is crucial to understand the efficiency and speed of different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Using constant values**: This approach uses hardcoded string values directly in the console.log statements.
2. **Using a wrapper function for constants**: This approach defines a separate function, `getAxisLabelPosition`, to access the constants from the `DISPLAYED_SCALE_XLABEL_POSITION` object.

**Options Compared**

Both approaches are compared to determine which one is faster and more efficient.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Using Constant Values

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward
* Less overhead due to function call
* Direct access to constants

Cons:

* Hardcoded values may not be flexible or maintainable in larger projects
* May lead to typos or errors if the constant name changes

### Using a Wrapper Function for Constants

Pros:

* Encapsulates the logic for accessing constants, making it easier to modify or extend
* Reduces typos and errors by using a named function
* Easier to reuse the logic in other parts of the codebase

Cons:

* Introduces additional overhead due to the function call
* May be slower than directly accessing the constant due to the function invocation

**Library Used**

None. The benchmark only uses built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Features or Syntax (None)**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for optimizing performance in JavaScript microbenchmarks include:

1. **Caching**: Implementing caching mechanisms to store frequently accessed values and reduce the number of lookups.
2. **Memoization**: Using memoization techniques to store and reuse previously computed results.
3. **Parallelization**: Utilizing parallel execution or multi-threading to take advantage of multiple CPU cores.
4. **Code Minification**: Applying code minification techniques to reduce the size and complexity of the code.

By considering these alternatives and understanding the trade-offs, developers can optimize their JavaScript performance and create more efficient microbenchmarks like this one.

Related benchmarks:

Value from array VS function wrapper of array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: use constant values vs use wrapper function for this constant

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

use constant values

use wrapper function for this constant

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):